Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Lancaster (Ormskirk Division), in the room of Sir Samuel Thomas Rosbotham (Manor of North-stead).—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now issue the results of the examples taken regarding the cost of living; and what discrepancies are there between the official figures and the tests of similar commodities?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 5th October to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour what changes in the cost of living have been reported since the outbreak of hostilities; in particular, by what percentage the price of foodstuffs in ordinary use has advanced since the beginning of September; and whether the basis of the cost-of-living index is to be changed in accordance with the recent inquiry or whether, for purposes of comparison, the old basis is to be adhered to for the duration of hostilities?

Mr. Brown: A detailed account of the changes, between 1st and 30th September, in the prices of the items included within the scope of the official cost-of-living index figures is published on page 375 of the October issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library. I propose to consider the question of the revision of the basis of the cost of living figures when the results of the recent inquiry into working-class household expenditure become available.

Mr. Adams: Can the Minister say when he expects to have these results?

Mr. Brown: As quickly as possible.

Mr. James Griffiths: In view of the fact that the cost of living is now rising, and that in a large number of cases wage reductions have taken place, will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate the arrival at conclusions by this committee?

Mr. Brown: As I have said, it is being done as rapidly as possible, but hon. Members will understand that when one has to analyse the results of hundreds of thousands of household cases, there is a certain bottle-neck which one cannot overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in cases where men serving with the Forces made an allotment out of their pay to their fathers, the Unemployment Assistance Board deduct 9s. out of the 17s. allotment from the father's unemployment allowance; and will he take steps to stop this practice which is causing dissatisfaction?

Mr. E. Brown: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a dependant's allowance, part only of which is derived from the man's own pay. I am not aware that the Board's practice in regard to the treatment of these allowances is causing dissatisfaction, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and cares to let me have details I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Griffiths: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the details. May I ask whether on the principle of this reduction he will say whether it has the approval of the Board?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the Board are now considering whether any change in their previous practice is necessary. As the hon. Member knows, it is difficult for me to say precisely what kind of case he has in his question, but if he will let me know what it is we can discuss the matter.

Mr. Thorne: In the case of allowances, would it receive any consideration?

Mr. Brown: This is not a matter of the Fund but of allowances.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this bears much more heavily on a widow whose son is serving?

Mr. Brown: That is just the kind of problem which is now being considered.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ascertain the approximate number of wives of serving soldiers who, failing to receive their statutory allowances, have been obliged to have recourse to the unemployment assistance authorities; and whether, in that case, they must register for employment which they do not need and disclose their financial position?

Mr. Brown: I regret that there are no figures available which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the Board is not empowered to grant allowances except on the basis of need, and it is therefore necessary for all applicants to provide particulars of their circumstances, but they are not required to register for employment where no useful purpose would be served by their doing so.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: In view of the resentment felt by these women in having to go to the unemployment assistance board and being bandied about from one office to another, would my right hon. Friend arrange to have a separate office at which these cases could be investigated with the sympathetic attention that is due to them?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Member knows that the origin of these allowances is not with me. We have to deal with needs.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing his utmost with his right hon. Friend to expedite these payments, as many women are suffering great difficulties at the moment and are being pressed hard for rent?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully seized about that.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the wives of serving soldiers who cannot obtain their statutory allowances are forced to wait long periods in queues at some Employment Exchanges

and unemployment assistance boards to receive advances of the money due to them, he will take steps to arrange shorter waiting periods and the avoidance of waiting in such queues?

Mr. Brown: Every effort is made so to regulate attendance at local offices that, if instructions are observed, there should be no undue waiting. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any specific cases he has in mind, I will look into them.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is considerable discontent among those in receipt of grants from the Unemployment Assistance Board in Rayleigh and Dagen-ham and district at their inadequacy following the recent increase in the cost of living; and whether winter allowances will be introduced forthwith?

Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 27th September and to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 5th October.

BENEFIT.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether the provisions by which unemployed persons were entitled to additional days' benefit based on their record of employment is now in operation; and, if not, will he state what the position is now in reference to this matter?

Mr. E. Brown: The provisions in question are in operation in those cases where a benefit certificate, which is still effective, was issued before the outbreak of the war. In other cases, in the unavoidable absence of the necessary records, it is not possible to operate those provisions, and accordingly alternative provisions were substituted by the Unemployment Insurance (Emergency Powers) Regulations, under which new cases have a maximum of 180 days under the general scheme, and 90 days under the agricultural scheme.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of agricultural workers registered as unemployed at the present time; and how these figures compare with the same date in August last?

Mr. E. Brown: At nth September, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, 20,380 persons, aged 14-64, insured under the agricultural scheme, were recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. The corresponding figure for 14th August, 3939, was 23,733.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this unemployment in agriculture is spread over the whole country or is in particular areas, and whether any special effort is being made to absorb these unemployed agricultural workers on the land?

Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member will find that there is no undue proportion of unemployment anywhere; it is widely spread.

Mr. Smith: Is any special effort being made to get them back on to the land in view of the fact that there is an alleged shortage of agricultural labourers?

Mr. Brown: It is for that purpose that we have made mobile arrangements whereby our officers can attend fairs and markets and do their best to see what can be done. The figure of unemployment is 8,000 less than it was last year.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it desirable to have 20,000 agricultural workers out of work at a time like this?

Mr. Brown: That question will give a misleading impression. The point is that there may have been 20,000 out of work on that particular day, but that they may be in work now.

DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take, in view of the large number of dismissals taking place in the distributive trades, to prevent employés being thrown out of employment?

Mr. E. Brown: It is not within my power to prevent such dismissals. Some dislocation in the distributive trades was inevitable on the outbreak of war, but I would urge employers in these trades, as in others, to do their utmost to avoid creating any unnecessary unemployment, temporary though it may be.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while shop assistants in

evacuation areas are unemployed, those in reception areas are having to work up to 9 and 10 o'clock at night? Surely there should be a limitation of working hours in order to absorb some of those who are unemployed?

Mr. Brown: That is another matter.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Are any special inquiries taking place with regard to the condition of workers in the distributive trades?

TEACHERS.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take into consideration the case of those women teachers deprived of their posts as a result of the school evacuation; and whether he will amend the Schedule of Reserved Occupations so as to permit of their undertaking all suitable forms of National Service, and not only first-aid and nursing?

Mr. E. Brown: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and I am not aware that any appreciable number of women teachers in grant-earning schools have been deprived of their posts as a result of the school evacuation. I am, however, considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, whether any amendment of the Schedule is desirable to meet the case of women teachers who have lost their employment in private schools.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very great distress exists among teachers in private schools who are not qualified to teach in public schools, and will he give this matter his attention?

Mr. Brown: That is one of the factors I had in mind when I said we were doing our best to meet the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of a man resident in Tamworth who has been examined for military service and passed Grade I, although his own doctor states that he is six years backward physically and mentally, is only four feet nine inches in


height, and weighs seven stone; and what observations he has to make regarding the case?

Mr. E. Brown: I have had inquiries made into this case, of which the hon. Member was good enough to send me particulars. There would appear to be no grounds for questioning the correctness of the Board's decision to place this man in Grade I. The Board, when making their examination, had before them a certificate from the man's own doctor.

Mr. Poole: While thanking the Minister for his reply, does he seriously suggest that a man who is obviously physically disabled and whose own doctor says he is six years backwards physically and mentally, should be put in Grade 1? Will he not give this matter re-examination?

Mr. Brown: I have made inquiries into the case.

NEWCASTLE TRIBUNAL.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to recent proceedings of the Newcastle Military Service Tribunal; and whether he is satisfied that the chairman of the tribunal deserves his continued confidence?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I am being kept fully informed of the proceedings of local conscientious objector tribunals. My information does not lead me to suppose that the chairman referred to is not carrying out his duties in an impartial manner.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the chairman of such a tribunal whose impatience with applicants in public is such that it leads him to make remarks for which he has later to apologise, is really displaying that proper judicial temper with which these cases should be considered?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept the setting of the supplementary question. There was one display of irritation with, I think, a handsome apology next day. I would point out to the hon. Member that some of those who give evidence are not themselves easy persons to deal with.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this incident has been repeated, and that it is not limited

to the isolated case to which he refers in his answer?

Mr. Brown: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Do we not set an example of this in the House of Commons?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND MILK AND MEALS (WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what steps have been taken to deal with the provision of suitable school buildings and adequate arrangements for milk and other meals, as recommended by the report on Anti-Tuberculosis Services in Wales?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As regards school buildings, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 8th June last. Since that date the outbreak of war has interrupted the improvement of school buildings which was under way, and at the moment it is not possible to forecast the rate of progress which it will be possible to achieve in this respect in the immediate future. As regards the provision of milk and meals, the Board has addressed letters to 26 of the 30 local education authorities in Wales, and in 16 of these cases replies had been received, before the outbreak of war, which promised improvements in the authorities arrangements. The Board propose to continue, so far as is practicable in present circumstances, their endeavour to secure an extension of any arrangements which are clearly inadequate for the needs of the area.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that evacuation, both official and unofficial, has led to a very large increase in the school population in Wales, and that, therefore, these measures are very much more urgent now?

Mr. Lindsay: I recognise that.

BOYS AND GIRLS (FARM EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Isle of Ely


Education Committee authorising the employment of boys and girls of 12 years of age on farms for the potato- and beet-lifting season; and whether such a decision was reached with his approval?

Mr. Lindsay: My attention has been called to this matter. The decision of the education committee, upon which the Board were not consulted, is in direct contravention of the explicit statutory provisions of Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and of the local school attendance by-laws. I have drawn the attention of the authority to this.

Mr. Morgan: While thanking the Minister for taking prompt action, will he indicate to other education authorities that they should set their face against any tendency to employ children on farms for these specific purposes, particularly in such weather as we are now having?

Mr. Lindsay: I hope this question and answer will help. I think education has been sufficiently interrupted without anything further.

Mr. Morgan: May I ask whether the action taken through this authority is sufficient to stop the practice in this case?

Mr. Lindsay: We have spoken pretty strong language, and I think it has had effect.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this sort of thing happened under the Factories Act, there would be a prosecution? Can proceedings be taken in such cases as these?

Mr. Lindsay: I should like to have notice of that question. We drew attention to the matter immediately.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Do not these children regard it as a pleasure?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not also a very healthy occupation?

Mr. Lindsay: I ought to make it clear to my hon. and gallant Friends that the Board are strongly in favour of giving every possible opportunity to school children over the age of 14 in evacuation areas to enter rural life.

Mr. Paling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have just been told that there are nearly 20,000 agricultural labourers unemployed?

MANCHESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the resentment at, and the effect over a large area of, the preferential treatment by the Board, of the Manchester Grammar School, compared with the elementary, central, technical and other secondary schools; what is the reason for this; and in view of the difficulties thereby caused to the local authorities in regard to evacuation, will he now, in conjunction with other Ministers responsible, reconsider the whole problem?

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware that the Manchester Corporation were averse to the reopening of Manchester Grammar School. In allowing the school to reopen the Board acted in pursuance of a decision by the Government that they were at liberty to allow the opening of secondary schools on the fringes, or in relatively sparsely populated portions of, evacuation areas, subject to compliance with conditions designed to safeguard the pupils. This discretion does not extend to schools other than secondary schools which comply with the conditions, and the Manchester Corporation have been informed that it will be exercised only in exceptional cases. The Board's decision should not, therefore, have any adverse effect on the city's evacuation scheme.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for this reason and other reasons the evacuation arrangements are breaking down, and is it the intention of the Board of Education to consult with other Ministers involved in order to consider what steps can be taken to bring about a more satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. Lindsay: I can only say that there is daily consultation between the Ministers concerned, and I think the hon. Member will appreciate that it is not entirely a simple problem.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this school is in Rusholme, one of the most populous centres of Manchester, and does he not see the point that once the authorities allow the children to come back to that school, there is no argument against all children coming back?

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of the force of that.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is it not a fact that this decision was taken by the governors purely on financial grounds, and may I ask whether the decision of the Minister was given on financial grounds, too?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not think that is so.

Sir Joseph Nall: Is it not a fact that most of the parents concerned approve of the action which the Board took, and will my hon. Friend say why the same thing cannot be done for elementary schools?

Mr. Lindsay: There is a difference in the ages, and that was one of the biggest factors in making this decision. If you allow the whole of the elementary schools to open, and it is compulsory or voluntary, it is clear that you have to reconsider the evacuation scheme.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is it not a fact that it was purely on financial grounds, and that these people can afford to pay?

Mr. Lindsay: I am afraid it is not.

Mr. Tomlinson: I say it is.

RECEPTION AREAS.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether arrangements can be made to ensure that pupils attending schools in reception areas for half a day only shall participate in the further educational activities which take place outside the school premises during the other half of the day?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir. It is open to a local education authority under Article 21 {a) of the Code to ask His Majesty's Inspector to approve general arrangements under which certain activities which are to be included in the school time-table are held elsewhere than on the school premises. This is being done in a number of cases and a full-day school time-table thereby provided. My Noble Friend hopes that such arrangements will be made wherever circumstances permit.

Mr. Ede: Would it be sufficient to have in the time-table the entry "out-of-school activities" or "extra-mural studies"? Is it not difficult to devise a more elaborate time-table beforehand owing to the vagaries of the British climate?

Mr. Lindsay: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have seen excellent

time-tables made out in the countryside, and I think there is a reasonable give and take between His Majesty's inspectors and the schools.

EVACUATION AREAS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what steps are being taken by the Board to ensure some measure of education for the large number of children who have not been evacuated from evacuation areas, especially in the North of England; and whether the position of these areas in regard to education is being reviewed by the Board?

Mr. Lindsay: Certain steps to provide education for children still in evacuation areas were suggested in the Board's Circular 1479 issued at the end of last month and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The Board are keenly alive to the position both in the North of England and elsewhere.

Mr. Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in many cities in the North more than half the child population are now amusing themselves in the streets and not being educated, and that teachers are unemployed?

Mr. Lindsay: I do, and that is why I said "keenly alive"; but my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a dilemma which has not yet been solved.

Sir J. Nall: May I ask my hon. Friend why the Government think that cinemas are safer in the hours of darkness than schools during the daylight?

Mr. Lindsay: I admit quite frankly that if one looks at it in that way, it seems anomalous, but if we compelled the opening of schools on a compulsory basis for all children, we should have to be prepared to take the risks. At the present time the Government are not: prepared to face that issue on a compulsory basis.

Sir J. Nail: Why not on a voluntary basis? Does my hon. Friend realise that many parents wish their children to get these facilities, as they are safer in the schools than on the streets?

Mr. Lindsay: I take note of my hon. Friend's statement, and will draw attention to it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Cannot the Government be forced to make the evacuation scheme a compulsory one?

Mr. J. Morgan: So that they can all work on the land?

EVENING INSTITUTES (REOPENING).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the work of reopening clubs and evening institutes for educational and recreational purposes, which is being recommended by the educational authorities, is being hampered by the instruction that has been issued that the premises so used must first be inspected by the Home Office, and that no teachers shall be sent to them until this has been done; that many of the activities are conducted in premises such as church halls which are being used on other nights of the week for other gatherings with the knowledge and approval of the local air-raid precautions authorities; and whether, in view of the facts, he will consider advising the local authorities concerned that they may supply the teachers for the activities, pending the result of the Home Office inspection?

Mr. Lindsay: In authorising the reopening of evening institutes in evacuation areas the Board laid down the condition that adequate air raid protection should be available in or accessible to the institution and that the number of students should not be so great as to impede their rapid and orderly evacuation to a place of safety. In view of the special responsibility which the Board have to take in sanctioning the reopening of schools in vulnerable areas, they are not prepared to relax this condition. I should add that the survey of buildings for this purpose in London has been specially undertaken by the Home Office, and I wish to express the Board's appreciation of the speed with which the survey is being carried out, with the result that a number of evening institutes have, I am informed, already been reopened.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of that, a large number of these small classes which were held in premises, now being used every night of the week for purposes which are more dangerous, are being held up and destroyed because the local authorities

are not allowed to send teachers; and that to withdraw teachers from the children in these centres where they are much better—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of the point to which the hon. Lady refers and we are making an attempt to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health what instructions have been issued with regard to the medical inspection immediately prior to their evacuation of the second group of the priority classes to be evacuated?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The supplementary scheme of evacuation is confined to unaccompanied children who have been registered. I have given instructions that the evacuating authorities should carry out medical inspection and, where necessary, the efficient treatment, of all children to be included in the parties.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to commence the second evacuation of the priority classes?

Mr. Elliot: The supplementary scheme of evacuation, which is confined to unaccompanied schoolchildren, has already been carried out in several areas, and I anticipate that it will be completed in all the evacuating areas in the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister give any kind of estimate of the total number of children concerned in this second evacuation?

Mr. Elliot: The register was 30,000 to 40,000 but the actual number was rather smaller.

Mr. J. Morgan: In the event of any of the children examined by the medical officers being found unfit in some respect, will they be detained until they are fit?

Sir Joseph Lamb: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think hon. Members should put any further questions on the Paper.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health what attention is being given by the billeting authorities to the need for arranging billets for evacuated secondary schoolchildren within travelling distance of a secondary school; and has he issued any instructions or advice on this subject?

Mr. Elliot: The local education authorities in co-operation with the billeting authorities and with the Ministry's regional officers and His Majesty's inspectors of schools are giving close attention to the re-arrangement of secondary school children in billets where this appears to be called for on educational grounds. I have called the attention of local authorities to the importance in general of making arrangements for carrying on the education of the children, and in a circular issued on 19th May last my noble friend, the President of the Board of Education, emphasised that children of secondary school type should so far as practicable be billeted in or near places where secondary school accommodation is available. He also stressed that for this purpose contact should be maintained between the local education authorities and the billeting authorities.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Minister inform the House how the 52 inspectors of His Majesty's Government belonging to the Board of Education can be available for assistance when they have been mobilised for defence?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I should be involved in a serious quarrel with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, if I attempted to answer questions for his Department.

Mr. A. Reed: Does the Minister really consider it necessary to evacuate young men of 18 and 19 as secondary school children?

Mr. Elliot: It is very difficult to draw a line between one child attending a secondary school and another. That is one of the matters, however, on which, I think, questions might more properly be addressed to the Board of Education.

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Minister of Health whether any arrangements have been made for the treatment of evacuated children in the receiving

areas in respect of notifiable and non-notifiable infectious and contagious diseases, minor ailments and injuries?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. These matters are dealt with in a circular which I have addressed to local authorities and of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the Minister also consider the great importance of nursing attention, by which most of this work could be done and which has been, I think, rather left out of his circular?

Mr. Elliot: There is a reference to it in the circular, but I admit that references are not in themselves sufficient. I am anxious about obtaining as much assistance in the reception areas from the skilled staffs in the evacuation areas as we can possibly manage.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that medical men in certain areas to which children have been evacuated are being informed that payment cannot be made out of the funds provided for the medical attendance and treatment of these children unless such medical men have joined the scheme for the protection of practices instituted by a voluntary organisation of medical men; and whether he has sanctioned such procedure?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I have received a complaint that the condition to which the hon. Member refers was being imposed in one area, but it was ascertained on inquiry that this complaint was without foundation.

Mr. Groves: Is the Minister aware that there is dissatisfaction in this matter; and has he received representations from the Medical Practitioners Union, a body affiliated with the Trades Union Congress; and, if not, will he receive representations from that body on the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I have received representations as a result of which I had the scheme for the area in question examined and found no such condition as is suggested.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Health what consultations were held between his Department and local education authorities before the evacuation of


school children took place; and whether consultations are entered into with the local education authority before sanction is given for the return of an evacuated school?

Mr. Elliot: Frequent consultations with the local education authorities as such were conducted through the Board of Education. I have also had the advice of a standing advisory committee which contains representative officers of local education authorities. Any consultation with a local education authority before the return of a particular school is sanctioned would be a matter for my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that the granting of these facilities before consultation has taken place, is creating difficulties for these local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member was discussing that matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education only a little while ago. I heard the interchange.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a letter sent by Mr. H. E. Fellowes, executive control officer, Braintree Rural District Council, to the parents of evacuated children of Trinity county school. Wood Green, intimating that unless a further 4s. per week is paid in respect of each child over 14 years of age steps will be taken to distribute the children over other parishes; whether the authority of his Department was obtained for the issue of this letter; and whether he will give instructions for the withdrawal of the letter and prevent any such threats to break up the educational facilities provided by the school in the present exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Elliot: My attention has been drawn to the letter to which the hon. Member refers: it was not issued with my approval, and I am in communication with the local authority on the subject.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Health whether a parent who has evacuated his child to the country by private: arrangement can now get his child billeted in that area; or whether any alternative arrangement for billeting can be made?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to a circular which I have issued and of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part of the question, if the parent of a school child is prepared to transfer the child to the reception area to which its school has been evacuated, the child can, with the prior consent of the local authority for that area, be billeted there under official arrangements.

Dr. Guest: In the case of children who were at the time of the first evacuation on holiday and who remained there at the request of the Government, will the Government take steps to pay the fares of those children, who have forfeited their return fares, to the area where they can be received with the school to which they belong?

Mr. Elliot: I would be quite prepared to examine any case of the kind which the hon. Member brought to my attention.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hundreds of such cases, and will he not consider the general question and issue instructions to the billeting officers to make payments in these cases?

Mr. Elliot: As the hon. Member knows, he and I have had some consultations on the matter, and I shall be willing to continue them.

Mr. Cluse: Will the parents of unofficial evacuees receive a grant to cover the cost of the return fares of children home in order that they may come under the official scheme?

Mr. Elliot: There are further questions on the Paper on that point.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the strong objection entertained by a great many parents to the inoculation of their children, he will remind the local authorities of all areas to which children have been evacuated that the consent of the parents must be obtained before such children are inoculated?

Mr. Elliot: I will bear this in mind in connection with any communication to local authorities on the subject.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that blind persons evacuated from London


are receiving domiciliary assistance from the local authorities at a lower rate than obtains in London; that these blind persons anxious to retain their London homes cannot afford to pay the rent and their London landlords are unable to sustain the loss unless the London authorities render assistance; and what arrangements to this end he has in view?

Mr. Elliot: The rates of domiciliary assistance paid to blind persons are a matter for the decision of the local authority concerned, and I have no authority to give any directions in the matter. I understand that the practice of the London County Council is to pay domiciliary assistance to blind persons evacuated from London at a rate based on that current in the reception area adjusted according to the needs of the case and that they are considering the question whether any special provision should be made to cover the rents of the London homes of these persons.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these people were informed that their stay would not be prolonged, that the London County Council would make lots of arrangements to help them to pay their rent, and that the council are now saving something like 10s. a week for every evacuated blind person?

Mr. Elliot: I should hesitate to accept such a statement without further inquiry especially in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison).

Mr. Sorensen: Did the right hon. Gentleman not answer a supplementary question which referred the questioner to a later question, and will he say whether the question in the name of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), No. 45, is the question to which he referred?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister answer the supplementary question now, seeing that unwittingly the House has been misled?

Mr. Speaker: That would be creating a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Health whether any con-

cessions can be made in the poorer reception areas in connection with supplies of blankets, coal, gas and electricity for evacuees?

Mr. Elliot: I have no reason to suppose that the billeting allowances payable to householders are inadequate to enable them to carry out the duties which they have undertaken: supplies of blankets are being made available to local authorities to meet the needs of householders who are unable to make this provision. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health what is the number of expectant mothers and mothers with young children who were evacuated at the outbreak of war; what is the approximate number who have since returned to their homes; and can he say what are the principal reasons given by such mothers for their return home?

Mr. Elliot: About 11,000 expectant mothers and 445,000 mothers and young children were evacuated. I am at present awaiting a return from local authorities as to the numbers who still remain in the reception areas, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have complete information. Reports made to me indicate that a desire to return to their husbands and homes and also a difficulty in adapting themselves to the conditions of country life are among the principal reasons for returning.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (REQUISITIONED PROPERTY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain local authorities and statutory bodies, part of whose property has been taken over for war casualties, are at present lacking the necessary information respecting financial adjustments between them and the Government, including the specific charges they are entitled to make; and whether, in view both of the confusion this may cause and the expenditure or financial loss already incurred, he will issue the necessary instructions in the near future?

Mr. Elliot: I have informed local authorities and other similar bodies that the reasonable cost of treating and maintaining casualties in hospitals and generally any additional expenditure due to the participation of hospital authorities


in the Emergency Hospital Scheme will be met by the Exchequer. I have forwarded to the representative associations of the local authorities concerned certain proposals as a basis upon which interim payments from the Exchequer shall be made and I await their replies. I hope it will be possible to announce the arrangements at an early date.

Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a number of these bodies are in very great difficulty because they cannot have this information?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, I fully realise that, but I have forwarded to them proposals, and I hope it will not be long before the matter is cleared up.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS COSTS.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the falling off in rates due to vacated property in evacuation areas where air-raid precautions costs are high and the higher incomes in reception areas where air-raid precautions costs are very low, he will take steps to make all air-raid precautions costs a national charge upon the Exchequer?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 21st September to the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs).

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an outline now?

Sir J. Anderson: I will send the hon. Member a copy.

CAMOUFLAGE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Sir J. Graham Kerr: asked the Home Secretary how many meetings of the Advisory Committee on Camouflage, announced on 2nd August, have been held during the months of August and September?

Sir J. Anderson: The first meeting of the committee was held yesterday.

Sir J. Kerr: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very instructive reply and while thoroughly appreciating the promptitude with which his Department reacted to the appearance of a particular question on the Order Paper, I would like to ask him a supplementary question—

whether he can assure us that the committee which got to work yesterday will be in a position to ensure that the waste of money and the failure to achieve effectiveness in certain types of camouflage, due to the consistent ignoring of well-established scientific principles, will now be remedied?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend has unwittingly done the Department less than justice. I can assure him that the arrangement by which the committee met yesterday was made before his question appeared on the Paper, and before I had an inkling that it was going to appear. As regards the remainder of the question, I would only say this, that the committee has been so constituted as to bring to bear on this important question of camouflage the opinions of many people who hold differing views on the theoretical and practical aspects of the question. The reference to the committee is very wide, and I have no doubt that the committee will be in a position to address itself to the question.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now say when he will be in a position to make a statement on the cost of the Auxiliary Fire Service throughout the country after he has decided what is to be the establishment of whole-time paid personnel appropriate to present and local conditions; and whether he is aware of the concern that prevails in the country concerning the unestimated and heavy expenditure now incurred?

Sir J. Anderson: The proposals submitted by local fire authorities in England and Wales are under consideration by my Department, in consultation with the regional commissioners. I cannot yet say when the complete results of this examination will become available, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the numbers of paid personnel will be reduced wherever those now employed are more than enough to meet requirements.

Sir R. Glyn: If I put this question down in a week's time will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not appreciate that there are not fewer than r,200 separate establishments to be considered, and I should not like to commit myself to a statement that


the whole of the work of examination of the detailed returns to be called for will be completed in a week's time.

Captain Sir William Brass: Does my right hon. Friend make any differentiation between the various parts of the country because a great deal of waste is going on in areas to which children are being evacuated and which are believed to be the safest?

Sir J. Anderson: I have tried more than once to make it clear to the House that in the establishment as fixed before the war differentiation was carefully made according to the supposed vulnerability of the areas concerned.

PERSONNEL.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now been able to satisfy himself that persons following other occupations have been appointed to air-raid precautions and other civil defence posts and thereby drawing two incomes at the same time; and whether he intends taking any action to abolish this practice?

Sir J. Anderson: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's question on 5th October, persons are not ineligible for whole-time paid service in the air-raid precautions service merely because they are in receipt of an income from other sources, but they must be in a position to give whole-time service at such times and for such hours of duty as are required of them and to take the necessary training for their service. Inquiries into the cases which the hon. Member has brought to my notice are being made locally in order to make sure that these conditions are being observed, and as soon as they are completed I will communicate with him.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that a person employed during the day and earning an income in respect of that employment is really available for the whole of the night for this A.R.P. work? How is it that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting that as a matter of course?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not accepting anything as a matter of course. I am always prepared to look into anything that may be represented as verging on the unseemly, but I really cannot undertake to concern myself as a general rule

with other sources of income that volunteers may enjoy or the financial condition of their household.

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that they are paid with public money, he will issue instructions that all local authorities should compile lists of all their paid air-raid precautions workers and that these lists should be available for public inspection?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 5th October to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Chatham Division of Rochester (Captain Plugge).

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in any further declarations which may be necessary that there is no reflection by this House on the patriotic services of these people, who for two years have been training to fit themselves, but that it is purely and simply a question of economy?

Sir J. Anderson: I am making a statement on the subject at the end of questions.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to state the total number of voluntary air-raid precautions workers and the total number of paid air-raid precautions workers in Glasgow; and the total amount expended up to date on air-raid precautions salaries, wages and expenses?

Sir J. Anderson: According to the returns furnished by the Glasgow Corporation there were, on an average, 5,077 paid whole-time volunteers employed in the air-raid precautions and fire services in September, their pay in that month amounting to £48,842. Up to date information as to the number of unpaid volunteers is not available.

Mr. Davidson: Referring to the last part of the Minister's reply, can he say if and when he will be able to get information as to the number of voluntary A.R.P. workers?

Sir J. Anderson: A return has been called for, and I hope it will be available very soon.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Home Secretary whether he contemplates putting the whole of the air-raid precautions personnel in the country into uniform; what would be the total number of persons involved; and the approximate cost per person?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on 10th July last. I cannot in present circumstances give the total number of persons involved, but the estimated average cost per person is IIs.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a scandalous waste of money and that more than 1,000,000 people are involved? The Army cannot get material for uniforms and we ought not to give these uniforms to those in the A.R.P. services?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot accept any of the statements just made by my hon. and gallant Friend. This is not a luxury uniform. It is a utility garment in the nature of an overall which will serve for the protection of the wearer's ordinary clothes, and the vast majority of the recipients will be unpaid part-time volunteers.

Sir W. Brass: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a report from Leeds, the crest of the local authority is to be embroidered on these uniforms?

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that women ambulance drivers, for example, have to climb on and off all kinds of vehicles and are suffering very great inconvenience and dirtying their clothes as a result of this simple and inexpensive uniform not being available?

Sir J. Anderson: That was one of the main reasons for the decision taken in July, after many representations had been made and after the fullest consideration, to supply this uniform.

Sir William Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the complaint that the uniforms and overcoats supplied to the ambulance drivers referred to are made of cotton, and will he make it clear that they are for the purpose of protecting clothing and are not meant really as warm wraps?

Sir W. Brass: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. H. Morrison: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make about the organisation of Civil Defence personnel.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying something to the House on this matter. In view of the importance of the subject and of the interest which it has aroused, I hope I shall be pardoned if my reply is given at some length.
Before the outbreak of hostilities no one could foretell the form or extent of the emergency which we might be called upon to face. Our preparations were based, and were necessarily based, on the assumption that the Civil Defence organisation would be called into action at the beginning of hostilities to meet intensive, and perhaps continuous, aerial attack. If we had based our organisation and our plans on any other assumption we should have been grievously at fault, and hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that I should have failed, and failed lamentably, in my duty, if I had not done all that was possible to ensure that we could counter successfully what is so commonly referred to as the "knockout" blow.
Having planned our organisation on that assumption, we had, at the outset, to mobilise our volunteers, the whole body of them that was available, both whole-time and part-time, and I can confidently say that the way in which that mobilisation was carried out—something entirely new in this country's experience —afforded clear and convincing evidence of the spirit of our people and reflected the greatest credit on local organisation throughout the country.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is answering a question which was put to him by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) as to the future reorganisation of Civil Defence. I am ready at any time to listen to a Minister making a defence of the past operations of his Department, but is it proper that that should be done in reply to a question dealing with the future?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to be quite all right. It is a matter of a statement being made on the part of the Minister of the Crown.

Sir J. Anderson: In setting so big a machine in motion there have naturally been some mistakes and some abuses, but no more, I suggest, than were inevitable in so widespread an undertaking. Do not let us magnify them to a degree which distorts the whole perspective in which our Civil Defence should be viewed. So far, I think, I shall carry the House with me; but the course which events have taken is not that which was expected and against which we were bound to prepare. There have been a few alarms, but there has been no attack from the air on our civilian population. In these circumstances it has been suggested that it is wasteful, both in money and man-power, to keep standing by whole-time a considerable number of men and women who, up to the present, in the absence of actual attack, have not been called into action. I do not dissent from the view that, now that we have mobilised, our organisation calls for some reconsideration. This is a matter to which I have been giving close attention, and in a moment or two I will indicate to the House the lines on which I am asking local authorities to proceed; but before I do so there are one or two general considerations which I feel I should place before hon. Members, and one or two misapprehensions which I should like, if possible, to clear away.
In the first place, I wish to say quite definitely that there can be no question at present of any wholesale demobilisation of our whole time Civil Defence personnel. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only the other day
the fact that we have not yet experienced the ordeal of aerial bombardment affords no reason whatever for any over-hasty or wholesale dispersal of our Home Defence forces.
So far as Civil Defence is involved, the battle has not yet been joined, but the mentality which so early has been saying "turn on your lights and turn off your volunteers" is not the mentality which is going to win the war. Who can say whether or when the attack may not be launched in earnest. The fact that up till now the war has so largely been what our gallant Allies call a "guerre d'attente"—a war of waiting—must not lull us into any false sense of security. The lines of Civil Defence must be kept

manned and ready for action. just as much as our anti-aircraft and ground defences must be kept continuously manned. This will necessitate the employment of a substantial nucleus of whole-time volunteers who are paid for their whole-time services.
The establishments of personnel, both whole-time and part-time, for each area, which were communicated to local authorities early this year, were determined after most careful consideration of the various factors involved—the size, character and possible vulnerability of the area. Some critics still talk as though the same scale of preparations had been urged on all parts of the country alike. I can only say that this betrays a complete ignorance of the organisation they are calling in question. Incidentally, may I make it clear that the suggestion, so often put forward, that my Department has insisted that local authorities should engage a certain number or proportion of whole-time personnel is entirely erroneous? Our scheme of Civil Defence has always assumed that, so far as possible, we should rely, and rely in the main, on part-time volunteers; but we have always recognised that in many, if not the majority, of areas some element, varying from area to area. of whole-time service would be necessary if we were to secure the continuous manning of key posts. Our so-called establishments of whole-time personnel have indicated, not the numbers up to which local authorities should necessarily or automatically enrol, but the numbers up to which, if need be, the Exchequer is prepared to carry the cost.
It is also a mistake to suppose that, except in one or two isolated cases, more whole-time volunteers have been engaged than was contemplated by our emergency plan. Still more is it a mistake to imagine that the larger proportion of out Civil Defence personnel consists of those employed on a whole-time paid basis. I greatly deplore that the vast volume of purely voluntary service now being rendered is not more generally and generously recognised. In our A.R.P. services as a whole it may be estimated that only one in eight is a whole-time paid volunteer. Indeed, it is true to say that in many areas the numbers of whole-time personnel at present enrolled in particular services—I have in mind such


vital services as rescue and first-aid parties—arc considerably less than we have contemplated as requisite to meet a period of extreme and intense emergency, and in certain cases, if we are to maintain a reasonable margin of security, some increases will actually prove necessary.
In planning our Civil Defence organisation, both the Department and the local authorities were in a sense planning "in the air." There was no previous experience in this country to guide them; our Civil Defence is a new creation.
It is one thing to plan on paper and quite another to see the plan in actual working, to see your troops, not as figures on a schedule, but actually on the ground. We have now seen our organisation in working, and naturally, as we look along the lines, we see that certain adjustments are called for. In some parts we have perhaps some surplus strength and there reductions will be possible; in others, the line is too thinly manned and more volunteers will be needed, both part-time and whole-time. It is now possible, for the first time, for the local authorities and the Department to review their dispositions in the light of actual working experience. What, therefore, we are endeavouring to do at this moment is to arrive at the whole-time nucleus for each service in each area which, bearing in mind the varying requirements of the services and the varying conditions of the areas, may be regarded as appropriate in the present circumstances, but we must always keep in mind the possible need for rapid expansion should those circumstances change.
Perhaps the problem of readjustment may be summed up in the word "flexibility." We have to devise a system whereby we can maintain our Civil Defence organisation, manned with the minimum of whole-time personnel necessary to secure that it should always be ready for action and ready to meet the first attack, but at the same time capable of rapid expansion to deal with repeated and intensive attack. It is on these lines that I communicated over a week ago with all fire authorities throughout England and Wales with regard to the Auxiliary Fire Service, and I am now communicating with scheme-making authorities as regards the A.R.P. and casualty services, in a circular framed after much consideration and close con-

sultation with those best acquainted with conditions in various parts of the country.
Let me illustrate the principles we have in mind from the Auxiliary Fire Service. We shall maintain in each area a suitable number of first-line units in constant readiness. These will generally require a substantial number of men available full-time except in so far as arrangements can be made for other volunteers to be available for duty at very short call. Behind these first-line units we shall have the second line, which will come into action only after an interval, for which only a very small nucleus of whole-time men would be employed, primarily for purposes of maintenance and to bring the appliances into action. The crews of the second line will depend in the main on part-time personnel who will answer the call as soon as possible, when required.
The conditions of the various services of Air Raid Precautions and of the casualty services vary. Some will be required to come into action more speedily than others, but subject to this we are asking local authorities to apply the same criteria and to arrange for a nucleus standby force which can be readily supplemented by part-time volunteers, and other volunteers who are able to leave their employment and temporarily to undertake full-time service. In reviewing these services I am taking full advantage of the local knowledge which the regional commissioners possess of the organisations in their several regions. Their advice and assistance are most valuable.
There are two points arising from the action I am taking which I feel it is very necessary to emphasise. In the first place, by reducing our standby forces in this way we must realise that inevitably we run certain risks. It is possible that the attack launched on some given place might be so heavy that our first line might prove insufficient to meet the needs of Civil Defence; but risks are inseparable from war and reasonable risks we must be prepared to carry.
In the second place, the adjustments which we are proposing authorities should make will increase the already vital importance of the services of large and larger numbers of part-time volunteers. Greater responsibility than ever will now rest on citizens to give their part-time services so as to ensure that we can


readily reinforce the whole-time nucleus if and when the call for action comes. I am confident that we can rely on the realisation by the citizen body that participation in Civil Defence is a national obligation. It has, indeed, been suggested that it is one which every citizen might not unfairly be asked to undertake. There is an attraction about this suggestion, but it is beset by very serious practical difficulties. We could not undertake to extend our training on so vast a scale as would be required, nor could we undertake to equip so vast a part-time army. There is in this country a general and an ardent desire to serve, and our Civil Defence organisation offers that opportunity for service which so many are seeking. There are some areas—a few—which have the proud record that their services are continuously manned by part-time volunteers, but, in general, and particularly in our big centres of population and production, which demand a high degree of protection, where the great mass of the people are in employment, it is not possible, solely on a basis of part-time service, to secure the continuous manning of key posts and essential services, throughout the 24 hours.
Large numbers of part-time volunteers may be available, but they tend to be available all at the same times. The extent to which the necessary whole-time nucleus can be limited must depend on the numbers of part-time volunteers who are in a position and are willing to undertake terms of duty at any time throughout the day, and on the rapidity with which volunteers otherwise employed could at time of raids leave their work and proceed to duty.
I should have liked to have been able to give, here and now some estimate of what the expected reductions will amount to. I cannot, however, give a definite figure at present until local authorities have completed the reviews which I am asking them to make and until their proposals have been collected and collated a complete picture of our revised dispositions cannot be obtained. I can, however, say this, that on the basis which we are now adopting it is not proposed that the first-line units to be maintained—which require to be manned in most areas by a substantial number of whole-time volunteers —should, for the time being at any rate,

amount to more than some 50 per cent. of the total strength of such units which has previously been contemplated as necessary to meet continuous and intensive attack. This, of course, assumes that arrangements can and will be made for securing that our second line can be brought into action within a reasonable period of time. In some services, and particularly in cases where personnel can be readily assembled, a lower percentage may be kept as the first stand-by line.
The application of the principles I have described will be that in a number of areas, often those which are probably less vulnerable but where volunteers had enrolled and had been engaged almost up to full war strength, not inconsiderable reductions may become possible. I must, however, in fairness to the House and in fairness to my responsibilities as Minister of Home Security, make it quite clear that it is equally true that in a number of areas, often those which are among our major centres, no reductions may be made except in so far as it is found possible to arrange for the necessary continuous duties to be carried out by part-time volunteers. As I have said, I anticipate that in some cases some further engagement of whole-time personnel will be found necessary. What we shall effect is the removal of inconsistencies, the ironing out of inequalities, while at the same time we shall, wherever possible, reduce the number of posts to be kept continuously manned and build on the system which it was always envisaged should be the system of our Civil Defence—a number of key posts and a nucleus of whole-time workers who could be reinforced and brought up to fighting strength at short notice by the second-line party who could be relied upon to turn out and to turn to in times of emergency.
Before concluding, may I be permitted to say one word about the volunteers themselves, the men and women who have undertaken to serve their country in this way? Some thoughtless sentiments have, I think, been expressed about them. They have been accused sometimes of having secured a soft and well-paid job. I cannot help thinking that we should not have heard accusations of this kind had the emergency and the risks which volunteers have shown themselves ready to face actually matured.
Civil Defence is not a soft job; it is true that it has not yet been put to the test, but even in these first days of war the life of the volunteers has not always been so easy as supposed. Long hours were put in at the outset and are still being put in, often under conditions of great discomfort, and much valuable work was accomplished in the final preparation of posts and the keying up of the whole organisation. The unremitting efforts of the officers of local authorities also deserves our greatest gratitude. Since then we have taken steps to settle down to collective training, and this period of freedom from raids has been of the greatest value to us in bringing our organisation on to an active service basis. I think we may all feel heartened by the response which the people of this country made to the call for volunteers and I regard it as most unfortunate that they should be subject to any disparagement or discouragement. No one says of a sentry keeping guard that he is just doing nothing. No one suggests that our ground defences standing by are a waste of money or of men. In the same way our Civil Defence volunteers are keeping watch, standing ready to go to the assistance of their fellow citizens wherever the call of danger and of duty may come. These men and women are not slackers; they are not parasites. They have answered a call to service and the country is, I believe, grateful to them. Perhaps, sooner than we expect, we may have occasion for greater gratitude and cause for greater pride.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement which we have just heard is considered to be comparable in its scope to the statements which we have had from those responsible for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and, if so, why was no notification given to the House through the usual channels that we were to have this lengthy, argumentative and eloquent statement? We would all like an opportunity of paying a tribute to these workers, but it is rather a disadvantage to have this sort of statement without notice.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I did not know myself that my right hon. Friend's answer would be so prolonged. In the circumstances, it must not be

taken to be comparable with statements that have been made on previous occasions, but perhaps it would be desirable when answers of such length are contemplated in future that they should be made more by way of statements than as answers to questions.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Speaker, may I now, in the light of your experience, put to you the point of order which I mentioned earlier, as to whether a statement of that kind, reviewing the past and the future, is an appropriate subject for an answer to a question?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must agree with what the Prime Minister has said.

Mr. Duncan: In connection with the recruitment of part-time volunteers, may I ask my right hon. Friend that he will consider employing these part-time volunteers nearer where they live, and not choosing people who live in Hampstead to work in Battersea and people who live in Fulham to work, say, in Clapham? It would be very much easier if they were employed nearer their homes; it would be far more satisfactory and it would save an enormous amount of work.

Sir J. Anderson: That was the basis of the organisation.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Minister has told us about this vast organisation which is working all over the country. Will he tell the House what is the value of this vast and expensive machine when some officer outside his Department altogether may prevent any warning reaching the population or his own workers, as in the case of the Firth of Forth raid? Will he give an assurance now that never again will a dangerous and extensive raid of that kind take place without timely and full warning to the population?

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask who is the Minister responsible, and when will his decision be announced, in regard to the principle of governing the area over which an air-raid warning will be given corresponding to the magnitude of direction of a particular attack; and has the Minister responsible for making that decision obtained from the Air Ministry particulars of the continuous threats of raids which might keep the whole country in a perpetual state of air-raid warning?

Sir J. Anderson: I think these are matters which had better be reserved for a separate statement.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On the Order Paper to-day there are questions by several hon. Members including myself containing the very point which I have raised. One was addressed to my right hon. Friend and was transferred to someone else. It is not fair to the House if no one is to make a statement on this most urgent matter.

Mr. McEntee: As the House is not meeting on Monday, could the right hon. Gentleman come along on Monday and make a further statement?

Mr. Garro Jones: If we are to have a further statement like the one we had to-day in answer to my question, I will put it down for a written answer.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Surely we should not go into this subject without ascertaining from the Leader of the House who is the Minister responsible whom we can criticise for failing to issue air-raid warnings in time, or, as an hon. Member stated, for issuing too many.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was present when I answered that point. I said the High Command was responsible for the issue of warnings, and, therefore, the Air Minister is responsible in this connection.

Sir W. Brass: In view of the 20 minutes' statement which has been made and the threat of another 20 minutes' statement at an early date, I would like to know if it is possible to debate the question later on.

Sir J. Nall: Is the Minister taking into account that a large number of people are prepared to give whole-time service without pay?

Sir J. Anderson: I think I did make reference to that point.

GAS MASKS.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Home Secretary whether, while allowing gas masks, which are the property of the Government, to be taken from passengers going abroad, he will give instructions that gas masks which are the property of the persons carrying them shall not be taken from them?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware that persons who have purchased respirators have been asked on leaving the country to surrender them, but if my hon. and gallant Friend can let me have particulars of any case in which this has happened I will have inquiry made.

Brigadier-General Spears: I can tell the Minister of a case in which a neutral, taking diplomatic bags from his legation, has been made to give up his gas mask.

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to give me particulars of that case.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the anxiety among evacuated mothers who have returned home concerning the need of infant gas masks for their young children; and whether, in view of the large number of mothers with young children who insist on returning home, he will indicate an early date when a sufficient supply of these gas masks will be available?

Sir J. Anderson: The distribution of anti-gas protective devices for young children is constantly under review and where additional quantities are required to meet the needs of evacuated children who have returned home these will be supplied in due course.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether "in due course" means the next fortnight or so; in view of the anxiety expressed by many mothers?

Sir J. Anderson: The first allocations for the vulnerable areas assumed a certain evacuation of young children. A supplementary distribution is now taking place in respect of young children who are known to have returned.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the gas masks sent to reception areas and not used be brought back to the evacuation areas?

Sir J. Anderson: They were not sent to the reception areas.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increased number of accidents in the country and the considerable public feeling on the matter, he will give consideration to a moderation of the black-out arrangements all over the country?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in answer to questions by the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson).

Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend say why the French people are allowed by the French Government more light than the British people are allowed by the British Government?

Mr. Dobbie: As the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers shows a considerable increase in the number of deaths, will not the Minister again consider reviewing the whole situation?

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. and gallant Friend said yesterday that the matter was being reviewed.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the harm which will be suffered by law-abiding shopkeepers who are compelled to close at 6 p.m. unless shops of the kinds permitted to remain open after 6 p.m. for their special trade are effectively deterred from the illegal sale of other goods after the general closing hour; and whether he will announce the intention of the Government to prevent unfair competition of this sort under cover of the black-out?

Sir J. Anderson: I am in sympathy with the view of my hon. Friend. The suggestion frequently made, that it is unreasonable when a shop is open for the sale of certain articles to prohibit the shopkeeper from selling other articles, ignores the fact that these restrictions have been imposed in the interests of the shopkeepers themselves and that contraventions of these restrictions are unfair to the general body of traders. The enforcement of the Shops Acts is a matter for the local authorities, and I have no doubt they will do their best, by enforcing the law, to protect the general interests of shopkeepers despite the special difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS, GLASGOW.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Home Secretary how many persons, approximately, are provided for by air-raid shelters established in Glasgow up to date?

Sir J. Andersen: I am arranging to send to the hon. Member the information for which he asks.

Mr. Davidson: While not pressing the Minister, for obvious reasons, for a definite reply to this question, may I ask whether he will make serious representations to the members of the Emergency Committee in Glasgow to do all in their power to stop wild and wrong statements appearing in the Press with regard to this particular question? On a point of Order, may I not have an answer? I did not press the Minister for a reply, but I did ask, in a constitutional manner and in accordance with the customs of this House, a perfectly legitimate supplementary question. May I ask again whether he will not ask the Emergency Committee to take this action? There are wild statements appearing in the Glasgow Press.

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have had the position in Glasgow continuously under attention for some time past and I will look into the points just raised.

UNFURNISHED HOUSES (DE-RATING).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation to discontinue the derating of unfurnished houses; and will he make a statement as this affects the plans of many people who are evacuating town houses?

Mr. Elliot: I do not contemplate any change in the existing law on the subject.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware of the burden which this will put on the rates?

Mr. Elliot: A number of questions arising out of conditions connected with rating assessments are under examination by the association of local authorities, and any representations which they make to me will receive my consideration.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the Minister aware that the evacuation of houses and other properties is going to have a marked effect on rateable values; that municipal services must be continued and that municipal expenditure in respect of property will be increased by A.R.P. and Civil Defence requirements; and is he not coming to the rescue of the local authorities in connection with these matters?

Mr. Elliot: I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to comment upon it, if I came to the rescue of the local authorities before they made representations.

HOUSING (PIG AND POULTRY KEEPING).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the necessity of increased home production, he will request local housing authorities to suspend, for the period of the war, any restrictions they may have imposed upon the keeping of pigs and poultry by their tenants?

Mr. Elliot: I am considering the issue of a circular on the subject to local authorities.

Sir P. Hurd: Has the Minister received a list of the authorities which still maintain this refusal to allow tenants to keep pigs and poultry, and is he making direct representations to those local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: I am sending out a circular to all local authorities.

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION, EVESHAM.

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of the water supply and the inadequacy of the existing sanitary arrangements in Evesham; and what steps he is proposing to take to increase these immediately, in view of the substantially larger number of people that the present supply has to serve?

Mr. Elliot: This matter is being immediately investigated locally by one of my engineering inspectors. I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister realise how vitally urgent this matter is? Is he aware that there is no water supply at all during the night in Evesham and that, as a result of the Ministry of Information, 700 additional people are now-being housed there and that at the present time the matter is one of grave necessity which brooks no delay, and will he be kind enough to have a further word with me on the subject?

Mr. Elliot: I have already received representations from my hon. Friend, and I shall be glad to let him know the result of the inspection.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (SOLDIER'S WIFE, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of an expectant mother in Armitage, Staffordshire, whose husband has joined the Army, and who is now left with only 9s. for food and all other necessities after paying rent and insurance; whether he is aware that the Staffordshire County Council have refused an application for public assistance; and what action he is prepared to take in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: My attention has been drawn to this case by the hon. Member, and I am at once making inquiries.

Mr. Poole: If the inquiries reveal the truth of the statement contained in the question, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the facts there disclosed reveal the deplorable and inhuman treatment of the dependant of a serving soldier, and will he make the strongest possible representations to the local authority?

Mr. Elliot: I am making investigations, and I am afraid I cannot beforehand say what the result of those investigations will show.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken in view of the increased cost of living to make provision for extra financial benefits for persons in receipt of National Health Insurance?

Mr. Elliot: The scheme of National Health Insurance is framed on an actuarial basis, under which the benefits are such as can be provided in return for the contributions supplemented by the proportionate State grant, and a general increase in the rates of benefit could, therefore, only be provided by an increase of the weekly contributions payable by the employed persons and their employers. I would point out that the statutory rates of benefit were raised to their present level in July, 1920, when the cost of living


index figure was 152 per cent, above the July, 1914 level as compared with the present figure of 65.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey to the House that the present position of these people is satisfactory, and is he not prepared to take any action to relieve the hardship on these people?

Mr. Elliot: If approved societies and the hon. Member make representations that the contribution should be raised, I shall take that into account, but obviously the contributions of employers and employed would have to be raised to cover these extra benefits.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the State finances the subsidy for this, and why does he not suggest that the Treasury should assist?

Mr. Elliot: It is admitted that this insurance scheme is a partnership between three parties, and it cannot be suggested that one partner should carry all the expense.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEETINGS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give returns showing the numbers of county, county borough, and other local authorities who have suspended meetings of their councils or of the committees thereof; and by what authority a municipal council suspends either its own meetings or those of its statutory committees?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot usefully add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 10th October.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman favourable to the general nature of that reply?

Mr. Elliot: I replied as recently as the 10th October, and I think it would be unnecessary to repeat it now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

TRIBUNALS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement

upon the general working of the aliens tribunals in regard to the discretion being exercised to allow persons to be aided at the hearings; and whether he is satisfied that no unnecessary refusals are taking place?

Sir J. Anderson: According to my information the tribunals are making full use of their discretion to allow aliens to be accompanied by some friend or witness who can give information which is likely to assist the tribunal. If my hon. Friend wishes to make representations about any particular case or cases, I shall be obliged if he will send me particulars.

Mr. T. Williams: Are legal representatives permitted at these tribunals?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement on the revision of regulations governing the application for permits for the employment of aliens in this country?

Sir J. Anderson: As I have already stated, it is proposed to utilise the services of friendly aliens in any direction in which they could advantageously be employed without prejudicing the interests of British subjects. To give effect to this policy, I propose very shortly to make a general order which will have the effect that, where an alien's stay in this country was made subject to a condition prohibiting him from taking employment, he will be free until further notice to enter any employment approved by the Ministry of Labour.

Sir H. Croft: While appreciating the desire for finding these unfortunate people work, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take note of the fact that in certain districts there is now abnormal unemployment, and take great care to see that Britishers are in every case given the first opportunity?

Sir J. Anderson: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at my reply he will see that I expressely safeguarded that point.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the reply cover doctors?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, the reply is in perfectly general terms.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a considerable number of friendly refugees whose services have been explicitly and personally applied for by employers who cannot get British workers, and will he endeavour to see that these long outstanding requests for permits are dealt with speedily?

Sir J. Anderson: I will bring what the hon. Lady says to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

DANGEROUS DRUGS (THEFTS FROM CARS).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the many cases of dangerous drugs stolen from the cars of medical practitioners, he will take steps to ensure that such persons are penalised for their neglect?

Sir J. Anderson: It is, of course, important that special care shall be taken as regards the custody of drugs, but I know of no ground for the suggestion that legislation is required to check carelessness by medical practitioners. My Department has heard of only 14 cases in the last 12 months where drugs have been included among articles stolen from cars, and in 10 of these cases the drugs were recovered intact.

Sir J. Lamb: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ascertain the actual number of these cases, not those which his Department has heard of, because this question was asked four years ago and since then repeated cases have occurred of dangerous drugs being taken from cars?

Sir J. Anderson: These matters should be reported to the police, and they will then automatically come to the notice of my Department. If they are not reported there is no way in which the information can get to my Department.

Dr. Guest: Is there any foundation for the suggestion that a large number of these cases have taken place? It seems rather a slur on the medical profession.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. have frequently had to warn people of these occurrences and against taking these drugs?

BRITISH COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN SETTLEMENT IN EUROPE.

Mr. Harold Nicolson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that several persons prominently connected with the Link, which was disbanded as an agency of enemy propaganda, have now joined a new organisation, styling itself "The British Council for Christian Settlement in Europe"; and whether the activities of these people are still being watched?

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Thurtle: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the financial backing of this organisation and whether any Members of this House are part of the organisation?

Sir J. Anderson: I ought to have notice of that question.

Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain resignations have taken place from this body?

Miss Wilkinson: Can we be assured that no members of this organisation are in the Ministry of Information?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I wish to raise a point of Order which, I think, is of interest to Members on all sides of the House. Like other Members I am aware of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the Government are entitled to transfer questions addressed to one Minister to another Minister, and I do not quarrel with that Ruling, but I wish to point out that the result of it is that in certain cases those questions are never answered at all. I give as an illustration Question No. 84 which is on the Paper to-day. That question was put to the Prime Minister. It is in the nature of a general question which, in my humble submission, would perhaps be best answered by the Prime Minister, but, leaving that point aside, it has been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no particular objection to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answering a question of this sort, but, in view of the fact that the Chancellor does not answer questions early to-day, the result of the


transfer is that it cannot even be postponed and, in fact, is never answered at all. I wish to ask, therefore, whether you would consider, when these transfers are made, if it would be possible to arrange that the Minister who is to answer shall at some period of the week answer his questions at the beginning of Question Time, so that if the Member chooses to postpone his question there is at least a chance of getting a verbal answer?

Mr. G. Macdonald: I desire to raise a similar point of Order regarding Question No. 72. It was put down to the Prime Minister but has been transferred to the Home Secretary. I am asked to accept the transference of this question, which I willingly do, but I think that when I have done so I am entitled to have the question put first, and not last. I am deprived of the chance of asking it to-day, because it is the last in the list of the questions addressed to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Silverman: Question No. 82 which appears in my name was addressed to the Prime Minister. It is a question about Government policy, and, therefore, I thought it was appropriate to address it to him, and it was on a subject on which the Prime Minister has on previous occasions answered questions. Like other hon. Members I do not object to my question being answered by another Minister, but I think I am entitled to claim that when the question is transferred to another Minister, it ought to have a place on the Order Paper not worse than it would have had if it had been answered by the Minister to whom it was originally addressed.

Mr. McEntee: I should like to make a similar point with regard to Question No. 81. It deals with what is, obviously, a matter of Government policy, and was addressed to the Prime Minister, but it has been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we are entitled to get answers at some time from the Prime Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Should not the Minister to whom the question is to be put consult the Member concerned, or notify him that the question is being transferred to another Minister so that the Member might make his own arrangements?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should bear in mind that questions are not transferred from one Minister to another at

the whim of the Ministers, but entirely because the Department to which a question has been transferred is considered to be the proper one to deal with that question. Hon. Members in such cases are always notified — [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] —that such transfer is taking place. In reply to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) it is always open to an hon. Member to postpone his question to another day if he thinks it will not be reached on the day when it is on the Paper.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I suggest that in this case the difficulty is that postponement means that the question will never be reached, and that when a question is postponed it should be possible for the Minister to answer it earlier in the day so that it will be reached?

Mr. Speaker: The question to which the hon. Member refers will be reached on Tuesday.

Sir Robert Young: Could it not be made possible when a question is postponed that the day also should be transferred? Some of us get notification only from the Minister and it is then too late to do anything, because the question has already been transferred?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are notified by the Minister to whom the question was addressed.

Sir R. Young: Sometimes the Minister himself notifies the Member that his question has been transferred, and it is then too late to give that notice. I am asking whether, when a Minister has transferred a question, the day could not also be transferred.

Mr. Silverman: In reply to the point of Order which I raised, you stated, Mr. Speaker, that it was the custom, when a question was transferred, for the Minister concerned to give notice to the Member of that transference, so that the Member might, if he chose, ask for it to be answered on another day. May I notify you that, in my own case, no notice of any kind was given? I only knew that the question had been transferred when I read my Order Paper this afternoon, and I therefore had no opportunity of choosing the day on which the answer might be given.

Mr. McEntee: Would it be in order, when no time is given for a Member to postpone his question, when that question is reached for him to say: "I wish to have the question transferred to another day on which an answer can be given"?

Mr. Speaker: It is customary for the Member to say that the question has been postponed to another day. In regard to the complaint by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), there must have been an oversight, for which I offer an apology.

FOOD PRODUCTION (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to give any information for the guidance of farmers regarding the Government's plans for expanding the home-production of food in time of war?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): As the answer may be considered somewhat long, perhaps the House will be content if it is circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Government have called on farmers to intensify and increase production from their land and in many cases to change their farming systems from those which were adopted under the economic circumstances prevailing in time of peace to those best adapted for national requirements during the war. It is necessary to plough up and grow crops on land on which such crops would not have been remunerative at pre-war prices as well as to grow more of our requirements of animal feedingstuffs, which in peace time have been more cheaply imported from abroad. A considerable expenditure per acre will be needed. The Government recognise that farmers will require assistance towards the initial outlay involved in these operations and also an assurance that the returns from farming under wartime policy will be adequate to enable them to carry out their national task.

To assist farmers in the initial outlay it is proposed to extend to 31st March, 1940, the period within which grassland

must be ploughed in order to be eligible for the grants of £2 an acre. It is also proposed to expedite the actual payments by arranging that they should be made as soon as the appropriate War Agricultural Executive Committee has certified that the land itself complies with the conditions laid down, that the ploughing has been efficiently done and that they will, in accordance with their powers and duties, ensure that the land will be properly cultivated and used.

It would not be possible or advisable to forecast definite figures at this stage for prices of wheat and other crops next year, but the Secretary of State for Scotland and I recognise the anxiety which is being felt by farmers throughout the country on this subject. I am authorised on behalf of the Government to state that it is their intention when the time comes to fix these prices to ensure to the farmers a reasonable return on crops harvested next year.

With regard to livestock, farmers will be guaranteed a market for cattle, sheep and pigs which will be bought by the Ministry of Food when food rationing commences. Cattle will be purchased at fixed prices on a scale varying according to the estimated killing out percentage. The initial rates have not yet been fixed, but provision will be made for a seasonal rise in the spring to cover the higher cost of winter feeding of animals in yards and adjustments will be made as and when necessary in the event of a substantial rise in the prices of feedingstuffs or other costs of production.

It is too early yet to frame a definite policy in respect of pigs, poultry or eggs, in view of the large amount of cereals required for these forms of production, a large proportion of which has in the past been imported, especially to meet the requirements of specialist producers. It will be the aim of the Government to maintain, and indeed to increase, our present production if this should prove possible, but we will have to be guided by facts. The position is being carefully watched and more exact guidance will be given as soon as possible.

To maintain or increase the production of cattle and sheep it will be necessary to increase the productivity of both good grassland and particularly the poor grassland, as well as to grow arable crops 10 take the place of imported feedingstuffs.


It is clearly necessary, as an insurance against a reduction in imported supplies, to take all possible steps to increase home production of meat. Since no substantial increase in numbers of fat cattle can be expected within the next two or three years, the best means of achieving this end quickly is by an expansion of the sheep population, bearing in mind that sheep need not consume any appreciable quantity of imported feedingstuffs. I would, therefore, ask farmers to increase their flocks by retaining old ewes and ewe lambs for breeding this winter. Prices will be raised, when the Minister of Food takes full control, to an initial figure of 11d. per lb. dressed carcase weight for fat sheep to the end of December, and so as to give an average over the year of 1s. per lb., a figure which should also make it worth while to bring lambs to mutton weight and thus increase the weight of meat per animal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: The business will be:
Tuesday—Consideration of Government of India and Government of Burma Draft Orders, and of the Opposition Motion with regard to the Personal Injuries (Civilian Scheme), 1939.
Wednesday—Committee and remaining stages of the Prices of Goods Bill.
Thursday—Statement on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and consideration of any outstanding Business.
The House will not sit on Friday.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to give notice that, subject to there not being a long Debate on the Prime Minister's statement next Thursday, we intend to raise the subject of India and the war.

Mr. J. Morgan: Seeing that we are not meeting on Mondays as a rule, how can we discuss business relating to questions, such as that answered by the Minister of Agriculture just now, dealing with important aspects of the State's activities? There are no facilities for discussing these activities. Can any be provided?

The Prime Minister: Subjects can always be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Morgan: But we have no facilities for questioning. The Minister of Agriculture invariably comes at the tail end of the list of questions on Thursdays, and Mondays are excluded. It is most important at the present juncture that some facilities should be provided for dealing with agricultural matters by way of question and answer.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the urgent importance to the House of such statements as that made by the Home Secretary and that which ought to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture, I hope that Ministers will not take the hilarity which was shown by this House to mean that we do not appreciate the importance of these statements and that they are not really necessary.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Postponement of local elections and extension of term of office of existing councillors and others.)

The Chairman: I do not select either of the first two Amendments on the Order Paper. The next Amendment stands in the names of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and one of the hon. Members for Dundee (Mr. Foot) —in page 1 line 13, leave out from "time" to the end of the Clause. I have some doubt as to whether I should select that, but I am prepared to give the hon. Members an opportunity of ex-plaining its purpose in order to enable me to decide.

426 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We think that this raises a very important point that is suitable for consideration by the Committee, and I hope that you will feel able to take that view, Sir Dennis, when I have given my explanation. By passing the Second Reading of the Bill, the House has agreed with the general principle of postponing local elections; but there is another question that does not necessarily go with that. That is the question of whether you should, at the same time, abolish any by-elections that may arise from time to time. So far as Parliament is concerned, we have taken the view that by-elections, whatever may happen about general elections, can go on—by agreement between the parties, although in certain cases there may be a contested election, which does not seem to do anybody any harm. It is felt strongly by some people that there is no reason why there should not be, at any rate, elections in localities for the purpose of filling an occasional vacancy, just as we are finding it possible to do so for Parliament. I think it does not touch the main issue, but it deals with a small and definite point. That really puts the case, I think, and I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) to elaborate the matter from that point of view.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will address himself to a point which occurs to me. If this Act, amended as he proposes, were to continue in operation for any length of time there might, for some reason or other, be so many casual vacancies that it would render these local bodies practically unable to carry on their business.

Mr. Mander: I do not quite follow how the difficulty is going to arise there. If you had a council consisting of 30 people, and there were 15 occasional vacancies, you would get 15 people elected to take the places of those who had died or fallen out for any other reasons. But the Bill would mean that if the annual election came round and all these 30 people were up for election at the same time, that election would not take place.

The Chairman: I must be very cautious, in a case of this kind, not to appear to express any view on merits. In those circumstances, I think I must give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, and allow him to move the Amendment.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "time" to the end of the Clause.

4.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As I understood the speech of the hon. Member, what he contemplates is that, although there shall be no local elections during the currency of the Bill generally, in the event of a casual vacancy that vacancy shall be filled by means of a by-election. But that is not the effect of the Amendment. The effect is to leave out all the words in the Clause after "time," in line 13, and what will then be left of Clause 1 will read as follows:
While this Act is in force no local election shall be held, and any alderman, councillor or elective auditor in office at the commencement of this Act shall continue in office:
Provided that the foregoing provisions shall not prevent the vacatior of the office of an alderman, councillor or elective auditor otherwise than by effluxion of time.
That is to say, that there shall be no local elections during the currency of the Measure. Casual vacancies may occur either by death or by resignation, and the effect of the Amendment would be that casual vacancies occurring in that way would not be filled at all.
The real issue before the Committee is not whether there shall be a by-election or not. That does not arise at all on the Amendment of the hon. Member. The issue before the Committee is, should casual vacancies be filled by co-option or should casual vacancies not be filled at all? I think the general sense of the Committee will be that it is a good thing that casual vacancies should be filled by co-option during the currency of the Measure. For one thing, it is perfectly clear that in any council where you have a small majority, either one party or the other, controlling the affairs of the borough or whatever authority it may be, two or three deaths or resignations from that particular party might alter the whole political complexion of the council. I think really it is good sense, if we are to have substantial agreement, that casual vacancies occurring from time to time should be filled by co-option as is provided in Clause 1.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: It may be true, as the Minister said, that the Amendment which is on the Paper does not quite achieve what it sets out to do, but, in spite of that, the Amendment is designed, as was made clear by my hon. Friend, to cut out the principle of co-option and to allow casual vacancies to be filled by election. That is the purpose of the Amendment, and that is the main argument before the Committee to which the Minister has not addressed himself at all.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is attempting to argue in favour of something from which it would appear that the Amendment before the Committee is incomplete. That relates to why I doubted very much whether it was an Amendment which I ought to select, and leads me to consider whether it should not now be withdrawn from the Committee.

Mr. Foot: Would not the effect of this Amendment if carried be to cut out the principle of co-option?

The Chairman: Exactly, if the hon. Member means a different Amendment from that on the Paper: but the hon. Member was talking about other means of filling vacancies, and those other means are not dealt with by this Amendment.

Mr. Foot: In that case, perhaps the best course will be to raise the argument

on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." I understand that there is likely to be a Report stage, and perhaps we may be more successful in placing an Amendment on the Paper then to which the Minister will be able to address himself.

Mr. Mander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15 after "elected," to insert "as soon as conveniently may be."

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to add:
Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to any council area where the Minister of Health is satisfied that a petition signed, by not less than twenty per centum of the electors, has been presented to him requesting that elections shall be held.
This Amendment deals with a small point, which, I think, could very easily be met if the Minister would be good enough to accept it. The general principle has been accepted, but I am sure it would not be the desire of the Government that councils should cease functioning altogether. This Amendment will give an opportunity to electors in a certain area, say, in the area of the rural district council of Lands End, if there is such a body which is not likely to be disturbed in their consideration of local problems, to have an election if they desired to do so. I cannot see what objection there could be to it, if the electors themselves —we know what apathy there is—desire to do so. I am not wedded to the figure of 20 per cent. I had to put in something. If it is thought too low or too high, I shall be willing to accept any other figure that the Minister may think desirable, but it seemed on the whole to be a reasonable one to take.
Let me give an example of the situation that is actually arising now. I know of one particular case. There is a very strong feeling, I understand, among a certain section of the electors in Torquay as to the way in which the negotiations in connection with the requisitioning of hotel property there has been conducted by the mayor and the council. I understand when they heard that this Bill was


to be brought forward they were aghast at the idea and very strongly objected to having their rights of recall taken away from them. In a case of this kind, if the electors of Torquay desire, as they undoubtedly do according to my information, to have an opportunity of making the councillors explain why they have done certain things, and of submitting alternative councillors who may serve them better in their judgment, surely it is a case where the democratic system ought to be allowed to function.
There are other cases which might occur to one. The question of the supply of Anderson shelters is a live issue in many districts, and there is a great interest in the A.R.P. arrangements, which are to some extent in the hands of the local council through the emergency committee. In my constituency there is great interest in this matter. If this Bill is passed in its present form, it will mean, perhaps over a considerable period, that there will be no means of putting any pressure upon the councils and the representatives of the people. I am not arguing against the whole strategy of the Bill, much as I dislike it, and unnecessary as I think it is, but I am asking for a very modest concession that will undoubtedly meet the need of a certain number of cases in this country, and which could be met without any real risk or danger at all.
I hope that the retirement of the Home Secretary from the Chamber does not mean that the Government have already made up their minds and are not going to accept any proposals that we put forward. If so, I do not think that it is treating the House fairly not to hear the case considered and argued on its merits. I appeal to the Government to consider very carefully whether they cannot make concessions in a case of this kind and so give an opportunity, in a very modified form, for the democratic representative system of this country to function locally in certain very enlightened and enterprising areas.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am glad to support the Amendment, as a member of a local authority. I did not support the Measure when it was submitted to the House, although I abstained from voting, for party reasons. My feelings were, and are, very strongly opposed to the

Bill. If I may say so with respect, this House is rather presuming to dictate to the local authorities of the country in a way in which it is not applying its dictum to its own proceedings. This House has determined that by-elections can take place, subject to local agreement, but in this Measure we are compelling local authorities, whether they like it or not, not to hold local elections. If the war is a prolonged one, this will mean that there will be no change in the constitution of the local authorities, and the lack of change may be a very serious detriment to the electors in certain cases. I have in mind a case in the North of England in which there is great controversy on the question whether or not the time has come for the expenditure of a substantial sum upon a new abattoir. I am advised that that matter has already been determined. There are other kindred matters of importance in connection with local authorities in which the voice of controversy will be definitely stilled by the Measure as it stands. Surely, we might consider the rights of the ratepayers and agree that if a large body of electors, 20 per cent., go to the trouble of promoting a petition to Parliament that local elections should be held, that is a concession which should be made. Otherwise, great hardship may be done in the localities.
The Measure, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was introduced without consultation with the local authorities concerned. Surely, therefore, in this mild degree we might have regard to local views, and if people go to the expense of submitting a petition to this House that local elections should be held, then they should be permitted to hold them. There ought to have been some definite statement made why the great local authorities were not consulted before the Measure was thrust upon the House. One knows that such a Measure was likely to be accepted, in principle, because one does not desire controversy at this time, but local authority opinion has never been consulted, and if for that reason alone we ought to show the degree of toleration suggested in the Amendment and allow it to be passed.

Mr. Charles Brown: How many protests has the hon. Member had from local authorities?

4.45 p.m.

Major Milner: I should have liked to agree with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment because, like him, I did feel rather strongly about the Bill; but, having given a little further consideration to it I have come to the conclusion that in this matter it has to be all or nothing. I regret it, and I regret that it has been necessary at this early stage of the war to bring the Bill forward; but as the November elections are approaching I take it that the Government considered it right to bring in the Bill at this early stage. The impracticability of dividing the Bill into compartments, permitting elections to be held in one place and not in another, is shown by the fact that day by day and week by week we see the electorate in every district being altered. Men are joining the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, there is evacuation and a hundred and one things of that sort, bringing about a complete redistribution of the population. That seems to me to be an overriding principle and one which should decide us to stand by the Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading, and carry it out.
There are other reasons. Assuming the Amendment were passed I can imagine that in some places where strong local feeling exists on matters such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), the result would be that public attention and activities would be distracted from what ought to be our chief effort to-day. I can imagine all sorts of possibilities arising in connection with different matters, some of which might have relation to the war and others no relation to the war. Particular sections of the electors might work up agitations, causing a great deal of difficulty and distraction of the national effort.

Mr. David Adams: What about Parliamentary elections?

Major Milner: That is another question, and there might be something to be said about that at a later stage but that, rightly or wrongly, has been more or less an agreement between the principal parties in the State. It does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition that if a number of people, 20 or 25 per cent., want to have an election for a purpose of their own they should be allowed to

do so, thereby disturbing the even tenour of the rest of the country. We must have regard to the difficulties under which our people are carrying on under the black-out and other restrictions. I feel very strongly on that matter. I think the Government have overdone the restrictions in many respects and that they might well be modified, even though they might have to be brought on at a later date, when the emergency happens. Having regard to all these things, and particularly the question of the redistribution of the population and the absence of large sections of the population, it does not seem to me practicable to carry into law the proposal of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, although when I first read the Bill and his Amendment I felt that I should like to support him.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: The general argument for supporting the principle of the Bill is very strong, but there are reasons why there should be some procedure in the Bill for meeting exceptional cases. That is what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has in view. Particularly is that so in regard to individual cases. The hon. Member mentioned a case in Torquay. Bearing in mind what the Under-Secretary said with regard to the balance of power on a council, an individual case may become very important. For example, in the constituency that I have the honour to represent the balance of power on the town council was one, and that balance was changed because one single member went back on very grave, very serious and stringent undertakings he gave at the time of the election. His going back on these undertakings completely altered the balance on the council and raised very grave misgivings not only among those of the same way of thinking as he was when he was elected, but also among those who differed from him in his political views. Accordingly the question arose as to whether he should continue to hold his seat on the council. In normal times there is always open to such a councillor the option of resigning. That has not been done in this particular case. In ordinary circumstances he would have had to face the electors when his natural period of office as a councillor came to an end. If there is a widespread feeling with regard to the actions of any particular councillor the Amendment that has


been proposed completely meets the situation. Twenty per cent. of the electors is a big proportion. In order to meet the exceptional case where the general rule might have to stand down, it is proposed that a petition must be signed by 20 per cent. of the electors. That is a very large proportion of the total electorate, but it may well be that the whole electorate may desire a change of councillor. There may in short be individual cases of such urgency that I think the Committee should give serious consideration to the Amendment.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I desire to support the Amendment. It has been designed to meet the occasional and extreme case where there might be great discontent in a particular area as to the policy adopted by the council. Under the Bill it is proposed to muzzle local government electors for the duration of the war. They go out of action altogether. They are not to have an opportunity to take part in local government elections or in any by-election. The part which local authorities will have to play in this war is going to be much more important than in the last war. Many war duties have been laid upon them which are infinitely more considerable than any they had to discharge between 1914 and 1918. There are all the numerous duties in relation to Civil Defence and there are the emergency committees, something for which there is no comparison in the last war. In these matters, as in others, the general policy is decided by Parliament, but it is for local authorities to decide with how much vigour they shall be carried out. You may have a situation in which a great number of the electors come to the conclusion that the council is not carrying out its duties in National Defence with sufficient energy and vigour. Surely, in that case there should be some method open to the electors. It is not going to be easy to get a requisition signed by 20 per cent. of the electors. It can only happen where you have strong feelings, and the circumstances mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) will make it more difficult to get the 20 per cent.
But you may have cases where there is a great cleavage of opinion. One can see the general design of the Bill. On the normal council where you have a majority

and a minority party, the intention is that each side shall be entitled to fill its own vacancies. You are putting a gift into the hands of the party organisations. But there are some cases in this country where all members of a council belong to a single political party, I am not concerned with the particular party, and that council may take a certain view of its Civil Defence functions. Those who disagree with it may be a powerful minority among the electors, and may during the course of the war become the majority of the electors. They are to have no opportunity of making their voice heard. If we are taking this step which nobody likes—nobody thinks it is a good thing to abolish local government elections— at any rate let us provide this last loophole. I feel that it should be there, and that is the reason why I support the Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: At the risk of being misunderstood I want to say that the effect of the Amendment would be the very opposite from that which the promoters seek to secure. If you are going to upset the machinery which has been drawn up for the purpose of giving democracy an opportunity of expressing itself in peace time, the effect of giving an opportunity to 20 per cent. of the electors to force an election seems to me to be the very opposite from that which the movers of the Amendment desire. In what circumstances will it be possible to get 20 per cent. of the electors to express themselves? The very illustrations which have been given condemn the proposal.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member is referring to an election where 20 per cent. of the people poll. That is not the proposal of the Amendment. The proposal is that there should be a petition signed by 20 per cent. of the electors.

Mr. Tomlinson: That makes it worse. It just puts the argument I want to put. You get certain vested interests whose interests have been affected by something which has been done—like the requisitioning of hotels. It may be the easiest thing in the world to throw out the mayor of a town because he has had something to do with it. He may be in the same position as 650 other mayors in the country who retain their seats because of the legisla-


tion we are passing. The Amendment is undemocratic, and yet it is supposed to be moved in order to safeguard democracy.

Mr. Foot: Why is it undemocratic?

Mr. Tomlinson: For this reason, that the people who ought to be entitled to vote are not there. The list of electors when the war has been going for some time will be composed of what I consider to be the fortunate people in the country —those who have not been called upon to leave their homes under an evacuation scheme or for fighting purposes. Therefore, it will not be an expression of the electorate, but an expression of that portion of the electorate which remains; and I question whether that would be the best portion to decide the issue, particularly at a time like the present. I hope the Bill will be what it sets out to be, that is, a standstill order for the time being. That is the intention of the Bill, but that is not what it is, as I shall attempt to show when we reach the final Clause. I hope that if some Amendment is needed, we shall be able to obtain it on that Clause at some stage. The Amendment now before us, however, far from improving the Bill, would worsen it from the standpoint of democracy.

5.1 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The very trenchant observations of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) really absolve me from any responsibility I have for answering the arguments made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in moving the Amendment. The observations of the two hon. Members may have appeared conclusive to the Committee, but may I put the matter in a light in which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has not seen it in the Amendment? This Bill was commended to the House by my right hon. Friend as being a necessary measure of national policy to meet the present emergency, and my right hon. Friend pointed out the circumstances in great detail. He referred to the difficulties of conducting elections in the black-out, the dangers that would ensue from the attendance of people at election meetings, and so forth. By a majority which was the largest I have ever known

in my Parliamentary experience, in that it consisted of several votes to none, the House approved that policy—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton will allow me to finish my sentence, he will find it more easy to criticise. That policy has been accepted by the House, but it has not been accepted by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and even argument that he advanced in his speech was an argument against the general policy; and the very words of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) showed that, notwithstanding that overwhelming majority, the hon. Member does not accept that policy now.
The hon. Member said that this Bill proposes to muzzle all local government electors for the duration of the war. That is a criticism of the general policy, but the fact is that that policy was approved by the House, by an overwhelming majority, and what hon. Members are now suggesting in the Amendment is that there should be an option in the locality, at the instance of 20 per cent. of the electors, to override the considered judgment of the House. Obviously, that is a situation that could not be tolerated for a moment. How and from whom are the 20 per cent. to be selected?—20 per cent. presumably being the maximum disgruntled minority on which the Liberal party could count. There are to be names collected in the way in which names to petitions are collected—names collected which might not even be on the register. How is my right hon. Friend to find out whether they are genuine names? They are names to be collected under no conditions of secrecy, names collected in a poll not protected by the Corrupt Practices Act, or anything of that kind. In reviewing these considerations, I must confess that I felt that the observations made by the hon. Member for Farnworth were fully justified, and that it would be the negation of the working of democracy that you should have these tabulated lists prepared, one does not know how or by whom, names of people whose addresses one would not know, and people who might not be on the register at the time. If, in fact, the lists were to be compiled between now and 16th November, there would not be any register, so that in any case the Amendment could not operate before 16th November.

Mr. Foot: If the Solicitor-General will look at the terms of the Amendment, he will see that it states that the Minister of Health has to be satisfied that a petition is signed by not less than 20 per cent. of the electors. Would it not be a simple matter for the Minister of Health to compare the list of names presented to him with the local government electors roll?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member seems to forget that there is a war on. That my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Security should have cast upon him the responsibility of deciding whether a list of names or a petition was a genuine list of persons who had the right to express their views and the right, if there were an election, to cast votes, would be a burden wholly too great to cast on any responsible Minister at a time such as this.

Mr. Mander: Is there not anybody in the Ministry of Information who could do it?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member might offer his services to that Ministry if he desired that his Amendment should be passed into law. For the reasons I have given, I suggest that the Amendment runs contrary to the considered decision of the House arrived at two days ago, and that no argument can be advanced for it which is not an argument against the principle on which the whole Bill is based.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the Solicitor-General refer to the point which I raised? I accept the principle of the Bill, but I pointed out that there may be a case that is so notorious that there is a universal feeling among the elected parties that a particular councillor should no longer continue on the council. What has the Solicitor-General to say with regard to that point?

The Solicitor-General: I intended to include that argument in my general observations. That is an attack on the principle underlying the Bill. Nobody pretends that it is a very happy solution that it should be necessary to suspend local government elections for the period of the war, and this suspension is bound to bring in its train inconveniences of the kind that have been mentioned; but those

are all covered by the general principle according to which it is in the national interest at this time that, notwithstanding disadvantages of that kind, a general measure of this sort should be passed, and that it should not be contemplated that purely local difficulties should enable the considered judgment of Parliament to be overridden.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Mander: When I attempted to make an interruption in the course of the Solicitor-General's speech, he asked me to allow him to finish his sentence, but his sentence must have been somewhat prolonged, because apparently it did not finish until finally he sat down. I wanted to ask him to address himself to the following question. He referred very dramatically to the great difficulty of holding elections in the black-out, and all the other well-known circumstances. I appreciate that difficulty, but if that be the case, how is it that it is possible to have contested by-elections over a very much larger area, containing a great many towns and villages, such as the by-election recently held in Scotland? The fact is that there is absolutely no defence which the Solicitor-General can make, and there is no answer to the Amendment. The position taken up by the Government is wholly illogical, and in their arguments on the Second Reading, and to-day, they have made no attempt to try to meet the points that have been raised.

The Solicitor-General: Nobody suggests that it is in the interests of national safety that there should be contested by-elections for Parliamentary purposes. It is a minor evil one is prepared to sustain rather than to sustain the greater evil. Policemen would have to work in the streets during an air raid, but that is no reason for inviting all civilians to go on to the streets. I should have thought the answer was obvious. While one is prepared to make a sacrifice of convenience, and even to put people to risks, in order that Parliamentary representation should be complete, that is no reason why one should do it in the case of every local authority in the country.

Mr. Mander: I am sure the Solicitor-General has done his very best, but it is a singularly poor best for him. In the circumstances, he could not do any better. Apparently it is safe, and it is a thing


we can do in the national interest, to hold a by-election over a large area, but it is unthinkable and dangerous in a rural district or a small market town to hold an election. Obviously, there is no real answer to the case we have made.
The speech of the Solicitor-General and one or two of the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway were in an anti-democratic spirit. The main idea seemed to be to prevent the electors getting at the people whom they wanted to get at. It seemed to be considered a horrible idea that the Mayor of Torquay should be subject to the embraces of the electorate of Torquay and that the electors should have a chance of doing what they really wanted to do in his case. The arguments which have been used are not in favour of the working of representative institutions at all. The hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) said that people would be away from home, but there are many neutral areas from which there has been no transference of population. I agree that, in a year or two, if the war continues there will be difficulties, but as regards this year's election, the situation which some hon. Members have envisaged does not arise at all. The Under-Secretary the other day objected to the suggestion that the Home Secretary should have power to select areas and issue a fiat that elections should not take place in those areas. Under this proposal no responsibility would be thrown upon the Home Office. The people themselves, the unfortunate, despised electors would take the responsibility of saying whether they wanted an election or not. I regret that the Government have not shown a more sympathetic attitude towards what I feel would be a very mild and harmless concession, but in the circumstances I cannot hope that the House is likely to adopt the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I think we should have a fuller reply than any which has yet been attempted to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Why retain by-

elections for Parliamentary purposes and abolish elections for local government purposes? The Minister who opened the Second reading Debate did not even refer to that point, and the Minister who replied made no attempt to meet the argument. Only the Solicitor-General has so far ventured any sort of reply. He puts it on the ground that it is more important to retain the democratic principle in Parliamentary elections than in local government elections. We all agree with that, but we who sit in this part of the Committee feel that it is still a matter of great importance to retain the democratic principle in local government, as well as Parliamentary government. That view does not appear to be shared in many parts of the Committee, but we on these benches still hold it.
In this Bill we are introducing a very undesirable principle. We are introducing into local authorities the principle of co-option. I do not think anybody would dare to suggest that Parliament should have the power to turn itself into a close corporation choosing its own members. The only attempt of that kind that has ever been made in Parliamentary history was when this House declared that Wilkes, whose majority was almost as large as that of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Woodburn) had not been returned and declared his oppenent Colonel Luttrell duly elected in his place. That is the only precedent for introducing the principle of co-option in Parliamentary government. It is now proposed to introduce this entirely vicious and undemocratic principle into local government. It may be said that we are postponing a Parliamentary general election. There is this distinction. A councillor whose term of office is prolonged by the Bill is an elected person. He sits there for one reason alone, namely, that he has been chosen by the electors of his district or ward. Now it is proposed to bring in a number of people who are not elected persons and who, in the majority of cases, will be merely nominees of their party organisations.
I do not think any answer was attempted on Second Reading to the objection that a majority might determine to use its powers unconscionably. Suppose there is a vacancy caused by the death or retirement of a minority


member and the majority say, "We are going to take this seat for ourselves," there is no safeguard against that in the Bill. I do not say it is likely to happen. I believe in the vast majority of cases this will be properly worked by arrangement between the parties, but it is easy to envisage cases of a majority using the power of co-option to increase its strength at the expense of a minority, even though that minority might represent the real views of the electors. I think that we should have a fuller reply on these points than we have had up to the present.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not think the Government have yet shown good enough cause for this Clause. The Home Secretary in the earlier Debate explained why the Bill has been produced. The reasons which he gave were purely practical. First, there was the question of extra work being imposed upon town clerks and other officials. I admit that, in some instances, town clerks would find additional work placed upon their shoulders by an election.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will bear in mind that at this stage we must not repeat the Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: I was dealing with Clause 1.

The Chairman: It is a well-known rule of Procedure that the most important Clause of a Bill cannot be used for the purpose of repeating the Second Reading Debate upon the principle of the Bill, which has already been passed by the House.

Mr. Stewart: I bow at once to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I will not pursue the line which I had intended to take. But following on the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) who asked for a further explanation of the need for this Clause, I would point out that the practical reasons offered for it do not seem to bear close examination. Could not my right hon. Friend, while retaining the principle of the Clause, agree between now and the Report stage to incorporate what has been accepted with regard to elections to this House? Why must there be compulsion? Is there not some way by which the Clause might

be amended, so as to make it possible for local authorities themselves to indicate that they will observe the voluntary idea as we have done in this House? The objection to the Clause is that I do not think it is necessary. I have never yet seen an answer to that objection. What local authority has asked for it? I do not know of one in Scotland. Has any local authority in Scotland been invited to express its views upon the question? I do not know. Has the Secretary of State any evidence that there will be, in any town council area in Scotland, an election in November? If there is such evidence, can we not have it?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is again going back to what is a Second Reading Debate.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I do not want to close down the discussion on the Clause, but we have had repeated, I think, a good many of the arguments to which we listened during the Second Reading Debate. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) both produced reasons for supporting the general principle embodied in Clause 1 of the Bill, but I think I ought to say one or two words in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who has delivered himself of a quite considerable speech against the principle of filling casual vacancies on local authorities by co-operation. I must confess that I think both he and his colleague, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in their self-appointed role of Pringle and Hogg, have been a little unfortunate in their intervention this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton made a speech which had no relation to his own Amendment, and the hon. Member for Dundee has now stated that he can see no reason for introducing into local government the extremely bad and undemocratic principle of filling casual vacancies on local authorities by co-option. It may interest the Committee to know that the filling of casual vacancies by co-option is the general method throughout the whole of Scotland and has been so for very many years.

Mr. Foot: On the councils?

Mr. Peake: Yes.

5.24 p.m.

Major Milner: Clause 1 provides that in the case of a casual vacancy in the office of alderman, the person shall be elected
in like manner as if this Act had not been passed"—
and in the case of a councillor—
by the council among the members of which the vacancy has so occurred.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has indicated that it will apparently be competent for the majority on the council, if it so desires, to appropriate all the aldermanic seats as they come along, and similarly, in the case of a councillor, it will be competent for the party having a majority on all occasions to appoint one of their own number and not, as is presumably the intention of this House, to appoint a member of the party or body representing the same principles or policy as the member who has evacuated the seat. One recognises that in the case of aldermen it is competent to do that now, and there are councils to-day which, to my knowledge, have acted in that way. It has so happened that the council has had a majority of a particular party at the time when the aldermanic election came along, once in every three years, and they have then appropriated to themselves all the vacant aldermanic places. Then perhaps the other party comes into power and does the same thing at the appropriate stage. On the other hand, there are more enlightened councils, such as those of the City of Leeds, which have an agreement whereby these things are dealt with proportionately, in accordance with the numbers of councillors who sit representing the respective parties. If it is not possible in this Bill to provide that members elected shall be of the same party or shall represent the same principles—because not all members of a council are members of political parties—as those of the councillor who has vacated his seat, at any rate the Government ought to indicate that in their view there should be something in the nature of a "gentleman's agreement," and that it is the intention of the House that that procedure shall be followed in the case of elections under this Bill. It ought not to be left to individual parties to appropriate the whole of the seats, and unless there is a definite agreement to the contrary, based on the numbers of councillors, councillors

elected under this Bill should be of the same political party as was the outgoing member.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, prior to the introduction of this Bill, any consultations took place with the representatives of the councils themselves? If not, I should like to know why not. It may be said by the Minister that consultations took place in this House with the Whips and the leaders of the different parties. and that may well be so—I do not dispute it— but it is a well-known Parliamentary doctrine that when the Front Benches get together, it is desirable for the Back Benches to get together also, in order to preserve the liberties of England.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Peake: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), may I express the view of the Government that, of course, where a casual vacancy occurs, that casual vacancy should be filled by a member of the party to which the person vacating his place on the council previously belonged? It is obvious that you cannot work a Measure of this sort unless there is a measure of good faith on all sides, and I am sure that the sense of justice and fair play of which our people are so proud will ensure that arrangement being carried out. In answer to the point put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), as to whether there was consultation, my impression is that there were some consultations with the Association of Municipal Corporations. That is my impression. In any case, there have been discussions between the leaders of the three political parties in the House, and the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party took part in those discussions.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Postponement of preparation of registers of electors and jurors books.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Foot: This Clause, which is not so controversial, concerns the postponement of the preparation of the register,


and I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could give information about the persons whose duty is to compile the register. Sometimes officials of local authorities do it as part of their duties. In a large number of cases they get an increment of salary for doing it. Their position will be affected by the postponement of the register for the duration of the war. If a man loses this work during his last years of office his superannuation pension is affected, for it is determined with reference to his salary and emoluments during his last five years of service. It would be an unfortunate consequence, which I do not think the House would intend, if, as the result of the postponement of the register, a man should lose some of his superannuation. I gather that there is some question of further legislation before the end of the war on these matters, and I would ask that the position of such persons should be sympathetically considered.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Peake: A deputation from the National Association of Local Government Officers was received at the Home Office on this question. There may be certain people who are rewarded by fees who may suffer to some extent through the register not being prepared next year. Nobody will begin to suffer any loss until, at any rate, April next so that there is time for further consultations to take place.

Mr. Foot: The matter will be further considered?

Mr. Peake: indicated assent.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Special provision as to City of London.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the word "as" in line 5, and to insert:
The foregoing provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to councillors shall apply to the Common Council of the City of London.
I must apologise to the Committee for bringing forward a manuscript Amendment. This Clause deals with the special position of the City of London. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) raised the question of this Clause

in the Second Reading Debate. The City of London requires some special treatment in a Bill of this kind for this reason. Aldermen in the city are elected for life. It was thought undesirable to give under Clause 1 a power by co-option of creating an office of alderman which would be held for the rest of a man's natural life, but that is the whole extent to which any special provision is required for the City of London. Clause 4 as drafted gives the City of London the option whether or not they care to adopt the provisions of Clause 1. I have seen representatives of the city and they do not wiant to claim any special exemption so far as councilmen are concerned. As the result of the Amendment which I propose, the elections of common councilmen in the City of London will become subject to Clause 1. The Amendment is restricted in its character and we had given the City of London rather more butter on their bread than they needed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Suspension of power to make orders altering areas or constitution of local authorities.)

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 37, after "alter," insert "or define."

In page 4, line 35, after "an," insert "Order in Council or."

In line 37, at the end, insert "Order in Council or." —[Mr. Peake.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions relating to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, after "under," to insert "the provisions of Sections eleven and forty-four of."
The object of this Amendment is to save the position of Queen's University in Belfast. It would be rather a complicated matter for me to explain and I hope. therefore, that the Committee will not ask me to do it.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we are now to be asked to pass legislation which the Minister finds too complicated either to understand or to explain to us?

The Chairman: There is no reason why the House should not excuse any Minister from giving any explanation the House does not want.

Mr. R. Gibson: Does the case of Queen's University fall under the general rule claimed by the Under-Secretary of State or under the exception which was repudiated by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General?

Mr. Peake: I think I had better say one word. The Committee will observe that under Clause 2 of the Bill registers of electors under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, remain in force, by virtue of this Bill, for another year. The registers of electors prepared at the universities do not come under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act but under Section 19 of that Act. Registers are made up at the universities by the university authorities, and it is not intended to affect university registers by this Bill. Had we left Clause 9 as drafted, applying this Bill to Northern Ireland, then the register of electors at Queen's University, Belfast, would have fallen within the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 31, leave out "Representation of the People Act," and insert"provisions."—[Mr. Peake.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short title and expiry.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, to leave out from "until," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
six months after the expiry of this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
This Amendment is moved to meet a point made on Second Reading by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). What he was afraid of was that an alderman, for instance, who was co-opted under this Bill might remain in office for a further period of four or five years. In any event new legislation will be necessary on the expiry

of this Bill, because we are continuing in office councillors and aldermen whose period would otherwise have expired, and the Committee will see that by the end of the year 1940 there will be two vintages, so to speak, of councillors who have been retained in office when they would normally have fallen to be reelected. In consequence, in the elections to be held in the autumn of 1941 we should have the whole of a council falling to be re-elected. The Bill, as drafted, was indefinite upon this point, and what we propose is that all these time-expired councillors and aldermen shall remain in office for a period of six months after the expiry of this legislation on 31st December, 1940, and no longer. The object is to give Parliament the time in which to build up the necessary machinery for untying the knots into which this Bill will get the machinery of local government elections.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I can understand that the Minister has the intention of preventing further complications, but I cannot understand his reference to the complications which have arisen. A little earlier in the Debate the Solicitor-General suggested that this was a standstill order, and I was taken to task by an hon. Friend below the Gangway for opposing what it was suggested was a democratic action. I contend that this Bill is democratic and it can remain democratic if we agree to the standstill, and I see no necessity for this Amendment. I see the necessity for making the last Clause do what the Solicitor-General suggested ought to be done. All that is necessary is that the Clauses as they now stand should be in operation, and that in the case of every individual who is at present a member of a council or becomes a co-opted member his time should expire as it would expire in the normal course of things. I grant that under the present arrangements every few years we should require a new election of councillors, but it would take six years before the present councils, including councillors and aldermen, expire, because of the fact that they are elected for six years.
If we put this Bill as it stands under the expiring laws continuance legislation at the end of the year and extend the service of every councillor or alderman for that one year the necessity for any remedial legislation afterwards will pass.


Then we should continue with the elections in the normal way. The man who would retire in 1941 either as an alderman or a councillor would automatically go to 1942, if the war lasted so long, and a man who would retire in 1942 would automatically go on to 1943. I know that these things are complicated, but there is no reason why we should give the impression that they cannot be remedied by every day commonsense. If the Government are in a difficulty I suggest that one or two of our lads who work in the mill will get them out in a few minutes.

5.46 p.m.

Major Milner: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlin-son) is under a little misapprehension. Under the Bill as it was originally drawn it would be the case that in the event of an alderman being elected his term of office would not expire by the effluxion of time and would only expire at the date fixed under the law in force for the next election of aldermen, and it would be possible for such an alderman to sit for five years if not, indeed, almost for six. That being so, it is obviously better to limit the term to six months after the expiration of the Bill, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting my suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PRICES OF GOODS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.49 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Hon. Members will agree that the subject-matter of this Bill concerns one of the most important as well as one of the most difficult problems with which we shall have to deal in the economic field, and most hon. Members will realise, I am sure, that in seeking a solution of this problem we have to walk very delicately between the almost equally great dangers which lie on each side of our path. One danger, with which the Bill is designed to deal, is, of course, very obvious, and it

is that of profiteering, or making excessive and unreasonable profits out of the exigencies of the war. This word "profiteering" has for over 20 years now passed into our vocabulary with an unpleasant connotation. I need not remind hon. Members that another definition of the term is the epithet "racket"; I will go no further than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and say that it verges upon the unseemly.
Apart from the natural antipathy which all of us have to the idea that certain individuals at a time of great stress, when most of us are looking at a prospect of loss and hardship should actually be making fortunes out of our necessities, it is clear that profiteering itself has an economic effect. All of us, on whatever side we sit in this House, are concerned and must remain concerned during the whole period of the war, with the problem of what I think the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) called the vicious spiral, increases of prices followed by increases of wages, followed by increases of prices, followed by further increases of wages, and so on, the process taking us faster and faster towards a catastrophic result. It must be the concern of all of us during the war period to prevent that spiral occurring. It is difficult enough when all we have to deal with are the necessary increases in price which the varying circumstances of war force upon us, but if, in addition to that, we have to deal with increases which are quite unnecessary, and which are not due to any unavoidable economic or political effects but entirely to the greed of individuals, that problem is made even more grievous.
Besides the economic effects, there is, in the existence of profiteering, a really grave social danger which may be out of all proportion to the extent of the profiteering or to the actual damage it may be doing. I think that the people of this country realise that the war that we are fighting cannot be fought without hardship to all classes of the community and that they are ready to accept hardship if they feel it is necessary in the national interest and to the successful prosecution of the war. That is very different from accepting hardship when the only reason of it is to line the pockets of some individual. I cannot agree with the junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who gave the impression


in his speech yesterday that he thought profiteering could well be left to be dealt with by taxation and that the fact that the profits were afterwards taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was—

Sir Arthur Salter: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I would interrupt him to point out that I did not say that. I said that loss of production was more serious than an occasional excessive profit because in large measure one could recover excessive profits by taxation, whereas loss of production would be irrecoverable. The context does not imply what the right hon. Gentleman is now recounting. I certainly said nothing to imply that I think excessive profits are anything but an evil.

Mr. Stanley: I was not suggesting that for a moment, but I think my hon. Friend will agree, if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, that it is fair to say that he put the point that profiteering could be dealt with by the recovery of the excess profit. That may be true from the purely economic point of view, but it does not meet the social grievance. I do not think that the personal grievance of a man who had been asked to pay excessive prices for an article would be removed if you told him: "That will be all right, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will in turn get it out of the man who got it out of you." It is essential to treat this matter in a rather different way.
For that reason, it is essential that any Bill that is produced should be effective in checking profiteering, but there is another danger which is not quite as obvious perhaps to the general public, although it is clearly obvious to all who have thought on the subject. It was brought out very forcibly in the speech last night by the hon. Member for Oxford University, and it is the danger that, in attempting to stop excessive profits— which all of us want to do—we may stop reasonable profit or all profits, or we may create a loss. The inevitable result, as the hon. Member pointed out, would be a loss of production and an effect upon the consumer just as bad as the profiteering which you had set out to prevent. It is clear that when we set out to keep down prices we have to keep down unreasonable and unnecessary increases but it is impossible to divorce prices from

cost. If we set out to keep down, or by mistake in our legislation we kept down prices while costs of production were rising, we should create a gap between prices and costs, and inevitably that would have a restrictive effect upon production. It is therefore essential that the Bill should be effective not only in stopping profiteering, but should be sufficiently flexible to allow for reasonable and justifiable increases in price during the currency of the emergency.
I would like to say a word upon the extent of this problem as it has shown itself during the past few weeks. Hon. Members will recollect that complaints of profiteering began very soon after the outbreak of the war. In the first instance, complaints that came to my notice were concerned mainly with small purchases of particular goods urgently required for war purposes, things like sandbags, black-out materials and torches; but the complaints about that kind of commodity soon began to spread, and to cover articles of a much wider range and greater importance in the ordinary life of the community. My hon. Friends and I made statements in this House encouraging hon. Members to bring to our notice any complaints that they received and we promised that we would investigate those complaints as far as we could.
Up till now I think we have received something like 1,000 complaints, sent in from one source or another, and have attempted to investigate the causes of the increases of price about which the complaints had been made. It is only fair to say that as a result of that investigation we found only a minority—indeed, only a small minority—where no explanation whatever has been given and where there has been no attempt to justify the increases of price because of increases in costs; and where, therefore, it is justifiable to assume that there has been flagrant and undefended profiteering. In the large majority of cases, the increases of price have been consequent on increases in cost. There have been many cases, and I will refer to them later, where, although some increase of price might have been justified, the level of increase which was demanded was wholly unjustifiable, upon the figures supplied.
I think it is necessary that the general public should realise that in present circumstances it is perfectly possible to have


an increase of price without any element of profiteering at all. There have been daring the past few weeks a number of factors which, in reference to certain commodities, make a rise in price inevitable quite apart from any question of profit. The fall in the sterling exchange, the increase in freight rates due to war conditions and to delays of shipping, delays and hold-up in external transport, the cost of A.R.P. services falling upon particular productive industries, war risks insurance—all these items are increases in costs which justify in many cases increases in prices without it being possible to level any charge of profiteering against the trader. In many cases which we have investigated it is only fair to say that the increased price charge has been related fairly and strictly to increases in the costs incurred.
There have, of course, been a number of articles where the prices have been much too big to be justified by the cost factors. That has been particularly the case with regard to war risks insurance. In many cases I think it has been due to a genuine misunderstanding. A number of people did not in the first place realise the implications, and charged the full 6 per cent. without realising the effect of the rate of turnover. There are other cases where quite clearly, even if that had not been fully understood, the price charged could never have been justified. In other cases I think the increase has been due not so much to a desire to profiteer as to a panicky feeling of uncertainty as to the future and a distrust of the course of prices in coming months, and an attempt, perhaps, to over-insure the future course of trade.
With regard to those complaints, I have had every co-operation from the main associations concerned. They have done their best to discourage their members from increasing prices unduly. I have also had discussions with associations representing various industries as to the course of prices in those industries. There has, I am glad to say, been a considerable result from these discussions and from the publicity which has been given to the subject in the Press. On the subject of war risks insurance, as a result of communications which I have addressed to various associations and firms, there have been a number of instances where an addition made to the

price to meet this particular cost has been reduced by the people who have been complained about. There is reason to believe that that increase which we saw a few weeks ago has been steadied and it is now becoming more moderate; but, even if that is so, it would be no justification for complacency, and it would certainly be no justification for abandoning measures such as are contemplated in this Bill. This movement was largely checked by the publicity which was given to it in the House and in the Press and, above all, I think, by the announcement, which obviously met with the approval of the whole House, that measures of this kind were going to be taken to deal with abuses in the future. I think that had the effect both of strengthening the majority of traders and manufacturers who do not wish to profiteer in this way, but who are put in a most unfair position by competitors who are adopting these measures. At the same time it had the effect of frightening the minority who were prepared to take whatever advantage existing circumstances gave them. It is essential that those salutary effects which have so far been achieved should not be relaxed and that we should proceed with this Bill and pass it into law and set up a machinery which I believe will be competent to deal with offences of this kind in the future.
It has not been easy to frame the Measure. We have, of course, a precedent, in dealing with profiteering, in the Bill introduced in 1918, but anyone who either remembers the terms of the Bill or recalls the history of its administration will not accept that as a very useful or valuable precedent. The terms of the Bill were almost studiously vague, with the result that it was largely ineffective in checking profiteering, but it was very often able to cause extreme irritation, hardship, and sometimes injustice, to traders who were perfectly innocent. I felt that, if we were to have a Measure which was to be any good at all, it was necessary to find some new method which would be more definite and which could, therefore, be capable of more accurate interpretation. During the drafting of the Measure I had the advantage of a great deal of consultation both with representatives of the various political parties, with associations representing traders and manufacturers and with representatives of the Co-operative


movement and the Trades Union Congress. Of course the responsibility for the Bill is entirely that of the Government. The consultation that these people willingly had with me in no way commits either individuals or associations to support of the Bill, but I should like to express my thanks for the very helpful criticism and some very instructive suggestions which I received as the result of those consultations.
The Bill is based on the principle of dealing, as opposed to the Act of 1918, with prices and not with profits. Whereas the Bill of 1918 dealt with what was left rather vaguely as a reasonable profit, this Bill deals with the price structure of the article concerned. There are three necessary factors to be determined. There is first of all the basic price, there is then the permitted increase, and the sum of those two gives you the permitted price, and the offence created by the Bill is the offence of selling above this permitted price. Clause 3 shows how the basic price is arrived at. The date chosen is 1st August, and the basic price will be the price at which similar goods sold in the course of that particular business on 1st August. The reason for the choice of that date is that the first really big factor affecting prices is this emergency, the fall of the £,took place on 23rd August, and it is convenient to take the 1st of the month because very often changes in price come into operation then.
That is the broad principle of the basic price. It is necessary, however, to make certain exceptions. If hon. Members will look at the Clause they will see that provisions are made for cases where either the particular business did not exist on the 1st August of this year, or the business did not sell these particular goods; and in another Clause they will find provision made for a new form of goods which is to be put on the market. They will also see in Clause 3 that power is given to the Board of Trade to vary the date of 1st August in certain circumstances, first of all if there are exceptional circumstances connected with that industry or commodity on the 1st August that year. There may have been something which made the price of that commodity on that particular day excessively high or excessively low as compared with the

general run of prices during the preceding months.

Miss Wilkinson: Does that mean that if you have a well-established business selling a certain line of goods, and a man opens a shop next door and sells the same line of goods, he can sell them at any price he likes?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that the hon. Lady has read the provisions to which I am referring. That is the point with which I was dealing. You will see in Sub-section (3) of the Clause that there is provision to deal with a business which was not in existence on 1st August and could not come under the general rule of the 1st August being the date for the basic price.

Mr. John Morgan: Suppose an established business took on a new line?

Mr. Stanley: I was explaining that these Sub-sections dealt with new businesses and also old businesses. To anticipate another question, I also said that there is a further provision in the Bill which deals with a commodity which is not in existence at the moment—a new type of commodity which may be produced afterwards. I was dealing with the various conditions under which a different date could be fixed. The first was due to exceptional circumstances and the second was due to lapse of time. At the moment, the 1st August is fairly recent and it will be comparatively easy to fix what the price of a certain commodity was at that date, but as the war goes on the 1st August, 1939, becomes further away, and the difficulty of proof becomes increasingly greater; and it may well be necessary to introduce a new method by which a price can be fixed. There is it also the question of seasonal prices; the price in August may have no relation to the price in December or January.
Having obtained the basic price, the next factor is the permitted increase.

Mr. MacLaren: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues—

Mr. Stanley: I think it would be better if I continued and hon. Members can put any points they wish afterwards.

Mr. MacLaren: I would like to know what happens in the event of overhead charges increasing. Is there any provision for such an eventuality?

Mr. Stanley: It was for that reason that I suggested it would be convenient if I finished my speech and then hon. Members could fill up the gaps which I have left and raise matters which I have left unexplained. The Clause to which I am referring, Clause 4, deals with the permitted increase and covers the point to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention. The permitted increase which is described in Clause 4 is an amount not exceeding such increase as is reasonably justified in view of certain matters which are specified in the First Schedule. If hon. Members will turn to the First Schedule, they will see set out various factors which are to be taken into account in justifying this increase in price, and they will see that one of the factors is "the changes in the total volume of the business over which the overhead expenses thereof fall to be spread." Other matters are the cost of raw materials, cost of premises and plant, insurance premiums, wages and salaries, transport charges, and so on. The Board of Trade has power to add to these if the necessity should arise.
Having arrived at the permitted increase, the addition of the basic price and the permitted increase equals the permitted price at which the article may be sold. The goods to which this machinery is to apply are to be stated in Orders made from time to time by the Board of Trade. In general, they will cover articles of necessity for general consumption. Where there is already price control of an article, this machinery is clearly unnecessary because the offence will be to sell above the maximum price fixed by the Government. Similarly, I think the extension of this sort of machinery to luxury goods is largely unnecessary because there the consumer has the remedy in his own hands. If they are luxury goods which can be done without and the consumer suspects profiteering he has the obvious remedy of not buying them.
Clause 5 gives to the Board of Trade powers under certain conditions to specify the basic prices, the permitted increase or the permitted price. This Clause is designed entirely as a protection for the traders. It does not create an offence but it creates a defence. It enables a trader to go to the Board of Trade and under the conditions of this Clause to have these three things specified. That does

not mean that the mere fact that he sells, say, above the permitted price which has been specified, in itself creates an offence. He will still be able to put up the normal defence which is open to him under this Bill, but it does mean that if he sells at that price or below it, it creates for him a complete defence and no prosecution can lie against a trader who sells in accordance with the provisions specified under the Clause.
During the consultations which I had with the various organisations, there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the value of this Clause. It was very much welcomed by some organisations and was pronounced unworkable by others; and it was clear that the difference of opinion as to this Clause and the protection it gave depended largely upon the class of goods in which the particular people were interested. The wholesalers who were producing large ranges of simple commodities thought it a valuable protection, but the retailer dealing with innumerable small quantities of varied goods thought it unworkable and impracticable. In order to meet those points of view I have made this Clause optional. It can be brought into effect only on the application of a body of traders and the Board of Trade can act on it only if they think it expedient and practicable. The decision has to be taken after consultation with the central committee to which I shall refer later, and provisions are made for appeal by dissatisfied parties so that the provider or the buyer of the goods can appeal to a referee.

Mr. Riley: May representations be made by associations only, or may individual traders make them?

Mr. Stanley: It would obviously be impracticable to specify a price for any single trader in any part of the country, but any body representing traders may make an application. As regards penalties, in the case of a third offence, it would be possible, with the leave of the Attorney-General, to apply to the court for an order which would prevent the offender from carrying on business any longer, or such an application may be made by the Attorney-General himself.
I want to say a word about machinery. The machinery will consist of various local committees and a central committee.


Their functions and their composition will be extremely important, because, although the ultimate responsibility must remain with the Board of Trade, I hope to put as much of the administration of the Act into their hands as possible. That will, I think, allow of a flexibility and knowledge of local conditions which it would be impossible to secure with a rigidly central administration. The central committee will be small. I hope to appoint people of expert knowledge, who will not represent the various interests, but will be able to look on the problems from different points of view. Their function will be to advise the Board of Trade on the exercise of powers in regard to such matters as articles to be included and basic prices of such articles. An important part of their duty will be to obtain uniformity among the local committees on questions of principle. In dealing with local committees they will have this sanction, that it is only by the decision of the central committee that prosecutions can proceed.
With regard to the local committees, I intend them to be larger than the central committee, and representative, as far as possible, of both producers and consumers. At any rate in the first instance, the areas which I select to be covered by these local committees will be the same as the Home Security regional areas. If we should find ultimately that those areas were too large to be convenient, we should then have a nucleus which we could split up into smaller areas. The duties of these committees will be to receive and investigate complaints, and, if they are dissatisfied with the response of the trader concerned, either to make the necessary adjustments or to recommend prosecutions. All of us must hope that it will be possible to remedy abuses, to correct excessive profit-making, more by methods of this kind than by a flood of prosecutions.
The rest of the Bill deals with certain different collateral aspects. In Clause 10 we attempt to deal with a problem which has been brought to my notice on several occasions—the case where a shopkeeper does not necessarily charge an excessive price for a commodity, but says that he will not sell that commodity unless the customer buys something else that he does not desire to buy. Sub-section (1)

deals with that. In Sub-section (2) we lay it down that where a customer buys a parcel of goods one of which is regulated under this Act he must be given on demand a statement in the general price as to the price of the regulated article. Clause II deals with another matter which has been brought to my notice, though not on so large a scale. I have had information about traders withdrawing from circulation large stocks of commodities, not with a view to regulating the proper distribution of those stocks between their customers, but obviously as a mere speculation, in the belief that in the future the prices of those commodities will be going up and they will be able to sell them later at a greater profit. In this Clause I have attempted to deal with that, and at the same time to preserve for the trader the right to carry on the perfectly proper practice, which all of us I think recommend, where there is a shortage of stock to deal with it by rationing the amount available among their various customers equally. The other Clauses are normal Clauses for a Bill of this kind, and I do not think I need draw special attention to them. I hope I have not been too long, but I am afraid I have not been too clear.

Miss Wilkinson: ; Hear, hear.

Mr. Stanley: But that may be due to the fact that some hon. Members, for most of the time, have been occupied in talking to other hon. Members.

Miss Wilkinson: I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members who are unable to obtain enlightenment from him have had to seek it from other hon. Members.

Mr. Stanley: As long as the hon. Lady is enlightened, none of us will complain about the source from which she seeks her enlightenment.
This is a pretty complicated Measure, and I have tried to be as brief as possible. I do not underestimate the difficulties. It is easy enough to make a Bill of this character, but whether it works or not depends on the administration. The success of the administration depends on the character of the persons who are appointed to the central committee and the local committees, and the initiative that they show. I intend, instead of massing a large staff at the Board of Trade to deal with these matters, to make


the committees as strong and representative as I can. I hope that I shall, before issuing invitations, be able to have consultations with representatives of the kind of people I want to get. I hope that, when it comes to issuing the invitations, the individuals who receive them will Tealise what a very important work this may be, and that they will be prepared to give their best service to a scheme which is absolutely essential. and which, I think, can, with their co-operation, be made successful.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The President of the Board of Trade has, I think, in spite of a little by-play, made a reasonable explanation of the Bill. It is interesting to some of us on this side to notice that now we have got to a national crisis of this kind, Members representing the National Government find it necessary to consider the tendency of those engaged in capitalist industry to charge undue prices whenever they get the chance. It was for that reason that the Labour Government, both in 1930 and 1931, endeavoured to get permanent legislation upon the Statute Book to deal with such questions, and which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) endeavoured to get through this House within the last 12 months on a number of occasions. It is true that there is always very great public interest in the question of prices, although I ought to add, in view of the terms of the explanation of this Bill by the President of the Board of Trade, that there is also very great public interest in the question of profits. In the course of the last war it became necessary, in order to allay public opinion, and especially working-class opinion, to set up a very large and constantly sitting consumers' organisation under the aegis of the State. I was interested, on going back over some of my records on this matter, to find that on the 16th July, 1919, six or seven months after the war, Mr. McCurdy, who was then in charge of the Food Committee of the Board of Trade, addressed the Consumers' Council on the operation of trusts, and he opened with these words:
I think that the people of this country are infinitely more interested just now in the cost of living than in the peace terms, and a great many people would be willing to let off the Kaiser if they could hang the profiteer.
That was the view then of the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Food, and

we at least find at all stages a tremendous interest, as expressed especially by the housewives, in this question of both prices and profits. In so far as this Bill seeks to deal with those who infringe the price of goods when regulated by the Board of Trade on the recommendation of the price regulation committee, I do not think that in the structure of the Bill there is very much about which we can complain, although it is most important to observe that the last sentence or two of the President of the Board of Trade will in fact govern the effect of the Bill. If the Bill is simply put upon the Statute Book as a kind of moral deterrent and is not worked and administered effectively, then it will be of no use whatever, and if it is left to people who have neither the capacity nor the experience in ferreting out the real facts about the increase of prices the Bill will not be effective. Therefore the first thing that the Opposition would say to the Government is that, if already on the experience of seven or eight weeks the President of the Board of Trade has found it necessary to introduce this Bill, especially seeing the colour and interest they have so often represented before, it is essential that the Government should themselves take the responsibility for seeing that the Act works and not leave it to sporadic efforts in local districts. They must see that this Central Control Committee works, and that in every local area where a committee is set up there are people competent to advise it, and especially there should be a competent chairman in every instance.
I am glad to learn that the President of the Board of Trade has in mind the need for representative labour and consumers' interests upon these committees, and I hope that he will take steps to have proper consultation with labour, trade union and consumers' organisations in order to ensure that these interests are represented. I could quote a number of instances of profiteering in the last five or six weeks, but I do not wish to delay the House on matters of that kind. I should like to come to what I think is much more important, and which it is not at all clear yet that the Government have in mind. Quite apart from dealing with the small trading breaches of price regulation which they lay down, have the Government any real plans for avoiding the larger mass


profits of an undue character which are likely to arise in war-time, apart from holding inquiries by this committee. That is what I would like to know. Looking back upon the experience of the Great War, while there were, as has been the case in the last few weeks, a large number of instances of petty profiteers making here and there profits which they ought not to make, the real experience of organised labour and of organised consumers in the country was that the great fortunes about which the President of the Board of Trade spoke at the opening of his speech were made by the large interests and not by the small traders. As I hear somebody say sotto voce" Cooperative Society," I always have to remind the House that when I speak of large interests the Co-operative Society does not make a profit; it returns it to the consumer. It is very essential that we should remind hon. Members of that fact.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider that from the point of view of the record which exists. I would ask him to get a little book published by a very Left Wing organisation called "The Labour Research Department."[Interruption.]The President of the Board of Trade asks whether he would have to pay for it? I do not see why he should not; it costs 3d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Profiteering."] That was the actual basic price charged when it was published in 1931. Perhaps I may just give one or two of the things I have in mind. You only need to take some of the profits issued by incorporated companies and combines in the immediate post-war period in order to obtain some understanding of what profits can be made in a large mass concern. The spinners' organisation in 1919 made a 100 per cent. bonus issue, and the great margarine firm of Van den Bergh issued a bonus in 1920 of 300 per cent.

Mr. MacLaren: Hear, hear.

Mr. Alexander: I am not quite sure whether that was a cheer of approval or whether it was in the other direction. The great wheat and milling concern of Messrs. Rank of 1919 made a bonus share issue of 175 per cent. I could go on quoting. I have a whole lot of them here. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to obtain this document. I

should like to have it back again as it is part of my treasured records. It is therefore important, in dealing with prices and goods, to know what the policy of the Government is in relation to the general economy of the country and how they are going to deal with control. I feel confident that I shall carry not merely the Members of my party, but the majority of the House with me when I say that it is very much better in a time of emergency like this to have your policy and your regulations in order to prevent both undue prices and undue profit. I am not at all persuaded yet by the production of this Bill that the Government have really made up their minds to deal with the question from that point of view. Let us take first of all the question of finance. If their financial policy is wrong, if it is not having regard to due economy in the issue of national credit during the war, then it will have a cumulative and spiral effect right through industry and prices, and through prices to wages. Take, for example, the question of margins of profit. The President of the Board of Trade is going to enter into an inquiry of a kind of price regulation, commodity by commodity. If you have margins fixed by the Government beforehand which are not right, then they will have their effect upon every part of the life of the community, industrial, commercial and social, which will afterwards affect the spiral to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. So far as I have been concerned with negotiations with Government Departments I am not persuaded that the Government are fully seized of that position.
I do not want to traverse the ground that was covered yesterday in the presentation of the general case for economic co-ordination, but when we come to deal with a Bill affecting prices and the economic life of the nation generally in time of war it is important to know what the Government have in mind. So far we have very few commodities, outside food commodities, which the Government have dealt with by control to prevent undue rise in prices. In so far as the Government have commenced in regard to food commodities, up to this moment, I feel like saying that we are not impressed. I referred a few weeks ago to the position in regard to the requisitioning of butter, which was so bad for the trade,


but provided a gross profit of 27s. a cwt. for the Government while the traders had to ration their supplies to their customers without a scheme of rationing being in operation.
If we look at one or two other commodities the same thing is operating. Take dried fruit. There we have the same experience. When we pass from food commodities to some of the other articles, what is the Government's policy going to be? Take the question of clothing. What is to be the regulated price of clothing? As I understand the situation at the moment, the position is that there is control of raw wool. On that they will probably arrange through Government action to take the whole supply of this or that country's clip of wool, but what about the control of price at every other stage in the process? What is clear at the present time is that we have control of raw wool but no control at all of the very important price stages in the subsequent use of that important article.
This argument can be applied to a large number of other commodities which I have in mind, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House in indicating them. It is important to put this question. According to Clause 1, it will be unlawful for any person to sell any price-regulated goods at a price which exceeds the permitted price. What goods are to be regulated? We have not had the slightest indication of the goods the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. He says it is not desirable to regulate luxuries. Very often there is difference of opinion as to what may be luxury articles or luxury goods. There may well be difference of opinion as to whether you should control all the stages of production by price, as well as the actual control of the primary commodity. We ought to have far more guidance from the right hon. Gentleman on that particular point than we have received in his speech to-day.
With regard to the Government's general policy, I am sure that many of my older hon. Friends on these benches will remember the case with which we had to deal again and again as Labour Members during the Great War, and that was the difficulty of getting wages to overtake prices. Finally, there was the great fight, led by Bob Smillie, on behalf of the

Miners' Federation, in regard to bread prices. Ultimately, the only way in which the position could be met was by the prevention of a rise in price of bread by an actual subsidy of the commodity to the consumer. Therefore, when we are talking about the price of goods, and especially consumers' goods, I would ask whether the Government have considered the general question as to whether it is more economical in some circumstances of national emergency, at a certain point, to use en masse Government credit in order to prevent a rise in prices, rather than allow them to go to the free play of what competition exists and then to have the continuous chasing of wages and prices, one after the other. In the long run, avoiding that cumulative effect, it would prove to be economical in regard to certain commodities to use en masse Government credit to subsidise the article, instead of having this vicious circle developing. I should like to know from the Government whether that question has received any consideration.
Another point to be guarded against in regard to the Bill is the question of the make-up of the prices to be considered by the Regulation Committee. I suppose that in every case the Orders to be issued by the President of the Board of Trade will indicate maximum prices. Am I right in that view? So far, all the price Orders issued by the Minister of Food specify maximum prices. If the Board of Trade are not quite clear about the matter, we ought to know.

Mr. Stanley: We are quite clear.

Mr. Alexander: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stanley: The Order will specify permitted prices. I explained that under Clause 5 prices can be specified where application is made by a body of traders.

Mr. Alexander: In nearly every case except in regard to a few commodities where there may be intensive competition, the maximum price becomes the minimum price. That is a point on which some indication ought to be given. It ought to be dealt with in the instructions to the committees which have to take that matter into consideration.
I understand that in a few minutes the House will be asked to hear a statement from the Prime Minister, and I shall, therefore, cut out a good deal of what I


might have said on other matters. I desire to consult the convenience of the House, so that the Prime Minister can come right in and make his statement as soon as I sit down. I am not yet satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the Board of Trade, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture upon this problem of prices. I have not yet seen the full details of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture to-day, but it looks as if home food production is largely to be stimulated by what I would call a price inducement policy. We really ought to have a considered and coordinated effort among all the Government Departments to prevent prices rising, rather than have to work a very great administrative machine for penalising those who break through.

GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND TURKEY.

TRIPARTITE TREATY.

6.51 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I do so in order to make an important statement. I am aware that I am adopting an unusual course and one which is not in order, having regard to the business now before the House. But I hope that with your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to make the statement.

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the Prime Minister, it is certainly contrary to the practice of the House for the Adjournment of the House to be moved for such a purpose while a Debate on another matter is proceeding. As the Prime Minister has an important announcement to make, and it is necessary in the public interest that it should be made immediately in the House of Commons, perhaps the House will agree that this course should be taken. If so, I should like to say that it must not be taken as a precedent.

The Prime Minister: The House will remember that I made a statement on 12th May in the House to the effect that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Turkish Government had agreed to conclude a definitive long-

term agreement of a reciprocal character in the interests of their national security. Pending the conclusion of this agreement, His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government declared that in certain circumstances they were prepared to co-operate effectively and to lend each other all aid and assistance in their power. It was subsequently decided, as a result of conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government and the French Government, that this long-term agreement should be in the form of a Tripartite Treaty between Great Britain, France and Turkey. Though the negotiations which have been proceeding since I made the statement on 12th May have been protracted, they have never shown any material difference in views and they have throughout been conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence.
Agreement on the terms of the Treaty was reached some three weeks ago, but signature was postponed with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government and the French Government as it was hoped by the Turkish Government that the visit of the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs to Moscow might result in the conclusion between Turkey and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of a parallel treaty. The negotiations which M. Sarajoglu has been conducting at Moscow have now been temporarily suspended as the Turkish Government felt that certain of the proposals which were made to them could not be reconciled with points which had already been agreed upon between Turkey on the one hand and Great Britain and France on the other. Nevertheless, it has been announced both from Moscow and Angora that Turkish relations with the Soviet Government continue, as in the past, to rest on a foundation of friendship. Meanwhile, the Turkish Government have decided not to defer any longer the signature of the Anglo-French-Turkish Treaty, and I am glad to be able to announce to the House that the Treaty was signed at Angora half an hour ago. The full text of the Treaty will be made available to hon. Members to-morrow.
I would call attention to the fact that the Treaty is valid for a minimum period of 15 years; it is, therefore, no temporary arrangement to meet a pressing emergency but is a solid testimony to the


determination of the three Governments concerned to pursue a long-term policy of collaboration. I am sure that it will give the House great satisfaction to learn that our negotiations have been brought to this successful conclusion, and that the seal has been set on our close and cordial relations with a country for the qualities and character of whose people we have the highest regard and admiration.

6.56.p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I am quite sure that I shall be expressing the views not only of Members on this side of the House but in all parts of the House, in welcoming the statement made by the Prime Minister that we have brought to a successful conclusion these negotiations for a tripartite agreement between Great Britain, France and Turkey, and to express the hope that it may long endure and that our friendship with Turkey may be strengthened for many years to come.

6.57.p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) I desire to congratulate the Prime Minister on having made his announcement so promptly to the House. The Prime Minister has shown a readiness during these trying weeks to take the House of Commons into his confidence, and I can assure him that it is appreciated by the House as a whole. May I say that we do feel, at a time like this, that it is a great triumph for the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole to have so successfully guided what must have been difficult and delicate negotiations? At a period in history when many Governments have had to face great difficulties since the war it is remarkable that Turkey has been one of the countries that has made immense progress in the arts of civilisation and economic development and, therefore, it is very satisfactory to us that they should be standing alongside this country in its fight for law and order and for decency in international affairs.

Mr. Garro Jones: I want to put only one question to the Prime Minister. Without wishing to press for any premature publication of the terms before it is considered expedient to publish them, may I ask whether he is able to say that the full terms of the Treaty will be published to-morrow?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what the hon. Member means. The full terms of the Treaty as signed will be published to-morrow.

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

PRICES OF GOODS BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I should like to begin by congratulating the President of the Board of Trade on the comparative clarity of this Bill. As far as I know, there is in the Bill only one reference to another Act of Parliament, and that is quite an easy one; and the Bill as a whole can, I think, be apprehended quite easily by anybody who reads it carefully once. One can see what it means and what it is getting at, which is, comparatively speaking, an exceptional thing in any Bill that is brought before the House. But it does not follow that because the Bill is intelligible it will be easy to administer. I do not think any Bill dealing with prices can be easy to administer. Price-fixing in any form is one of the most difficult tasks anybody can undertake, for it seeks to impose a certain measure of rigidity in what is in itself a necessarily fluid matter. There are so many hundreds of different factors which contribute to the proper price of an article that State action in trying to arrive at any kind of regulation is a matter fraught with a great deal of difficulty and danger, and it is very difficult to arrive at the results which are desired. Whatever arrangements may be made with regard to prices, there are always ways in which evasions may take place. Let me mention one matter with which I do not think the President of the Board of Trade dealt in his speech, clear though that speech was. When the price of an article has been fixed, there is always the question of quality and the possibility that there may be some subtle evasion of the regulation of prices by an alteration in the quality of the article produced. That is a matter which it will be very difficult to deal with by legislation.
Perhaps the most important of all the parts of the Bill is the First Schedule, for it is in the First Schedule that there are


set out the considerations which the various committees and the Board of Trade are to take into account in deciding what is to be the permitted increase, and the permitted increase, of course, is the important matter. The basic price is a comparatively artificial thing; that is to say, it is arrived at by an arbitrary standard, taking an arbitrary date, although I admit there are certain flexibilities allowed where the date is not a suitable one; but it is arriving at the permitted increase, whether it be done correctly or not, which will determine whether the Bill protects the public on the one hand and abstains from interfering unnecessarily with trade on the other hand. Looking at the First Schedule, I am bound to say that I am very considerably impressed by it. It appears to me to show very considerable forethought and consideration of a very large number of matters, but I hope it will not be regarded as a matter of finality. I observe that at the end of the first Schedule there is a power reserved by the Board of Trade to make an order which takes into consideration
Any other matter specified in an order made by the Board of Trade under this Schedule.…
I have very little doubt that that power will have to be used. It is almost impossible, in framing a Bill of this kind, before it has actually started working, to exhaust all the considerations which will have to be taken into account in deciding what should be the permitted increase. To mention only one matter— and I am not saying for a moment that I have considered it enough to know whether it is a matter that ought to be added in the First Schedule—the question of bad debts is at the present time making a very considerable difference to a great many traders. It is not a question of ordinary bad debts, but bad debts which, in a sense, are forced upon them by Government action and the policy of the country. There has been a great movement of population, and shopkeepers are finding that the very debtors upon whom they were depending for payment have disappeared into the reception areas, where they may be very difficult to trace. I do not for a moment say that I have formed any conclusion as to whether this consideration should be

added to the Schedule, but I indicate it to show that there are many matters on the margin of the Schedule, as it were, which may hereafter have to be considered.
It is clear that a great deal will depend upon the central and local price regulation committees, of the constitution of which by the way we know very little at the present time. We do not know how many there are to be—it may be that there will be one in an area—or exactly the kind of people who will sit on them, or their method of procedure, and how they will set about their task. Doubtless this will be worked out in time. I must confess that I am rather relieved to find that the estimate of the cost of these committees is put at only £45,000 per annum It is a sight for sore eyes in these times to find any kind of estimate dealing with thousands of pounds instead of millions of pounds; and apart from that, the estimate seems to set some kind of limit upon the scale of the machinery that is to be set up under the Bill. I have been seriously perturbed at the hosts and hordes of boards and committees and officials that are being set up with regard to every conceivable kind of subject. It appears to me that there is some danger that half the country will be working and actually doing something; and the other half will be employed in watching them do it and telling them not to. I am relieved to find that the machinery necessary for operating this Bill is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, on such a comparatively modest scale. I should like now to ask one or two questions which relate to matters of detail and which are, perhaps, in a sense, committee points, but if I indicate them now, it may enable them to be dealt with when we come to the Committee stage. They have reference particularly to Clause 10 of the Bill, with regard to which the President of the Board of Trade did not say very much. I have referred to the clarity of the Bill, but in this Clause I detect a certain amount of ambiguity which I should be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would clear up, if he can. In Clause 10, Sub-section (1), there is the following provision:
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom an offer to buy price-regulated goods is made to impose, as a condition of the acceptance of the offer, a condition to the effect that the buyer shall buy any other goods, whether being price-regulated goods or not.


What exactly does the term "other goods" mean? It has two possible meanings. Does it mean other goods than those contained in the offer, or goods of an entirely different character and description from those contained in the offer? I can imagine this situation. I might go to the President of the Board of Trade and offer to buy from him, let us say, three dozen socks at is a pair. He might say, "I cannot let you have them at that price if you buy only three dozen, but if you buy a gross, that will be my price for a gross." Thereby, it is possible that, under the provisions of this Clause, one would be doing an illegal thing in that one would be consenting to accept an offer that had been made on condition that other goods than those which had been contained in the offer would be ordered. If the President of the Board of Trade can assure me that it does not mean that, but that it means something like attaching a condition about buying butter to an offer to buy sugar, then it is an entirely different thing; but if my first interpretation is the correct one, the provision might possibly put a limitation upon the very ordinary commercial process, which is, I think, entirely unobjectionable, of offering a lower price where a larger quantity of goods is taken. Another ambiguity appears to me to arise in the last sentence of the same Sub-section, where it is stated:
or a condition to the effect that the buyer shall pay for any services in respect of the goods to which the offer relates other than transport or insurance.
Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that transport and insurance are the only services for which a charge may be made? I am thinking particularly of credit. Is not the giving of credit to the purchaser, in itself, a service? If I offer to buy from the right hon. Gentleman 100 gross of pairs of socks at 10d. and if he says," That is my cash price but if you want your usual terms of credit, three months or whatever it may be, I may have to charge you 11d.,"that might be considered an additional charge, in respect of a service, that service consisting of helping the buyer to finance his transaction by allowing him a stated period of credit. It has been indicated from certain sources that there is some doubt as to the meaning of the Clause in that respect. If credit is, indeed, to be considered a service for which an additional charge may not be made, once again

there will be considerable interference with ordinary commercial practices which are in themselves unobjectionable.
I may mention in that connection Clause II which is a prohibition of the holding up of stocks. It deals only with offers made "with a tender of immediate payment there for." It is clear that there you are dealing with cash transactions. In Clause 10, it is not equally clear whether what is contemplated deals with cash transactions solely, or whether any provision is made for making any different price in cases where credit is allowed. I am very glad that Clause 11 has been worded in such a careful and circumspect fashion. If it were just a plain prohibition on the holding up of stocks and an insistence that orders must be accepted, it would lead to commercial chaos. In businesses of which I have some knowledge I am aware that, both in the September crisis of 1938 and in the crisis at the beginning of this war, there was an enormous amount of rather ill-considered and sudden buying. People who were entire strangers to the business came in and made very large offers of cash which, if accepted, would have denuded the business in question of its normal stocks and prevented it supplying goods to its more regular, and if I may put it that way, its more reasonable customers. That would be a disastrous thing, and I think the careful wording of this Clause has avoided that grave danger.
There is only one other point of detail which I wish to mention. Clause 13 provides that the Measure shall not apply to a sale or an agreement or offer to sell for an amount fixed by auction. That, I agree, would be impossible. It also provides that the Measure shall not apply to a sale or an agreement or offer to sell goods intended for export. I realise that it might be difficult to apply the machinery of this Bill to goods intended for export. At the same time, I do not think it will be denied that a good deal of damage can be done, and has been done in the past, by the charging of excessive prices for goods intended for export. Towards the end of the last war, and, in particular, immediately after the last war, I believe much harm was done to certain important British trades by the charge of preposterous prices for exports which had at that time to be accepted by nations which needed the goods. Those nations had never forgotten it. Not only


have they gone to alternative sources of supply, but I know that in the case of one nation with whom we are friendly to-day and with whom I hope we may remain friendly—I refer to Italy—an enormous amount of ill-feeling was stirred up immediately after the war owing to the prices that were charged for things needed by Italy and supplied by this country. I hope that there will be some kind of supervision, and that if provision cannot be made in this Measure, some kind of watch will be kept to ensure that mistakes of that kind do not happen again.
I am not altogether in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that this Bill depends entirely upon the amount of operation which actually takes place under it. I hope that, if need be, it will be worked to the full and applied with the utmost rigour of the law when it is passed. But I think that its mere existence is of considerable value. Once it has been passed it will have a considerable effect, in terrorem, on greedy and grasping traders who are, I believe, in a very small minority among all the traders in the country. They will know that they can be called to account and punished if they offend against these provisions. At the same time, it will give a certain amount of ease to the minds of the purchasing public. It is extraordinarily hard for the ordinary customer to know whether he has been swindled or not. If he goes to a shop and sees that an article has gone up in price by 30 per cent., his tendency is to say, "What thieves they are." That may or may not be true. The 30 per cent. increase may, in certain circumstances, barely cover its share of the overheads of the business. If it is known that there are expert committees dealing with prices—and I hope the committees will make themselves generally known and trusted by the public —there will be less likelihood of panic movements and rumours of robbery which may be without foundation.
In any war which lasts for any considerable period, there are bound to be agitations of at least three kinds. There will be an agitation against spies, an agitation against prices, and an agitation against the Cabinet. There will be cries of "So-and-so must go" and "Sack the lot" and all that. All those agitations will probably have some considerable

basis in fact. What we have to see is that the innocent do not suffer with the guilty, and, by the innocent, in the last instance, of course I mean the Board of Trade. I should hate to see a slaughter of the innocents in that respect. Although we may find in Committee that this Bill needs alteration, I think in its broad outline, if properly administered, it will genuinely protect the public, and at the same time cause no real hindrance to legitimate trade.

7.20 p.m.

Sir George Schuster: I wish, at the outset to express my agreement with the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffiths). I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I regard it as a well-designed and sensible Measure, and speaking as one who has been representing a large trade organisation, I would like to express appreciation of the way in which the Board of Trade has taken us into consultation in dealing with it. As gratitude is always a very lively sense of favours to come, I was very glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that he proposes to continue that process of consultation, particularly when it comes to considering the composition of the committees and the instructions which might be issued to such committees by the Board. I do not want to go into the details of the Bill this evening, because there will be other occasions for that. I should only like to express the view that there are two very important practical points—one, the instructions that will be issued to the committees for their guidance, and, secondly, the question of the composition and membership of those committees. I feel that it is perhaps worth making one point as regards the committees. I believe that one of the dangers to be guarded against is that they might develop into a sort of party organisation, with consumers' representatives on the one side and trading representatives on the other. I believe it is very important to get, as much as possible, completely impartial people on these committees—chartered accountants for example—who have a real knowledge of business and who understand costings and that kind of thing.
There is one other point of detail that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend. If one looks at the first Clause, about the kind of goods to come under


this Bill, and if one reads that together with the explanation which we have had, I understand that the goods which will be specified as price-regulated goods will be goods of common use, the price of which goes to make up the cost-of-living index. I suppose that, normally speaking, my right hon. Friend is thinking in terms of finished goods, such as overcoats, or boots, or articles of that kind, but I want to ask whether the question of price regulation will follow the process of manufacture backwards to half-finished goods and raw materials, because it will be very difficult to control the price of standard completed articles unless the control goes right back to the first stages.
"Having expressed that general commendation of this Measure, to which I would add, on behalf of all those to whom I have spoken about it, an expression of our desire to help in its operation, I want to turn to a wider issue, I must go on to say that the best friend of this Measure could not claim that, as it stands, it has more than a very limited scope. If we regard it as part of a general plan to control prices and to prevent an unnecessary rise in the cost of living, then I think we should consider how that purpose ought to be fulfilled and what steps are necessary to supplement a Measure of this kind. We had yesterday a very interesting Debate on economic co-ordination, and I think one may say that agreement was expressed in all quarters of the House that, having regard to the task which is before us, we new need what one could describe as a co-ordinated national effort to mobilise the whole resources of the nation. The plea was vigorously put from the benches opposite that that co-ordination must be complete and effective, that there must be complete control, and that, particularly as regards prices and profits, there must be no repetition of what happened in the war of 1914–18.
Those are purposes with which we all agree, but the point that I want to make is this: We can see in the world to-day practical examples of that sort of control put into operation. Things that many people said in the past were impossible have in fact been done in a practical way in both Russia and Germany. But I think we want to appreciate what that means. I happened to be turning over the other day a very interesting article

which appeared in "The Banker" early in 1937, written by a number of German business men, as to how control was working in Germany, and among the points that were brought out in that article were some points which I think it will be valuable for the House to appreciate. It was estimated early in 1937 that no fewer than 500,000 whole-time employés were engaged in operating the system of control in Germany. There were six different authorities controlling the machine, controlling supplies of raw materials essential to each industry, what each should make, and so on. They referred to an inquiry which had been carried out by a South German chamber of commerce, which had gone into the position of a number of small businesses employing from 100 to 200 people, and they found there that 75 per cent. of the cost of the clerical work in those firms went in filling in Government forms. It was calculated that each single transaction, taking normal transactions and quite apart from export transactions, involved the filling-in of 140 forms, and when it came to transactions for export, or transactions which involved the purchase of imported raw materials, the number of forms to be filled in went up to something like 700. A particular example was quoted where 10,000 lbs. of wool were imported in exchange for some German toys, and in that particular case 780 forms "had to be filled in, and it was 18 months after the transaction was completed that the official regulations were complied with. I want to put it to the House that that is the sort of thing which has been necessary in order to work a complete system of control, and I do not believe that a system of that kind will be tolerated in this country. Granted that we must produce this co-ordinated national effort, we have to produce a different technique, and I believe that that technique will consist in co-operation between the Government and the organisations of private industry.
Arising out of that, I want to put this point to my right hon. Friend: I have already mentioned that I happen to have been dealing with this matter as chairman of a special War Problems Committee set up by the Multiple Shops Federation, which is a federation to which all the important multiple shop companies belong. I suppose it represents one of the largest organisations in the country.


We have been considering this whole problem for some time, and we passed a resolution early in May of this year to this effect:
In the event of the country being involved in war, there must be a plan which will ensure that material resources no less than man-power are to be at the country's service, that national interests are not to be subordinated to profit-making, and, further, that as such a plan must be prepared in advance of the national emergency, this Federation desires forthwith to enter into discussions with the Government in this matter so far as concerns the business of its own members.
That was a seriously intended resolution, and I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that its sentiments were worthy sentiments. It was communicated to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and the Prime Minister replied that we had quite rightly put it before the Chancellor as it fell within his sphere. We got no response, however, until the end of July, when one of us was invited to see an official at the Board of Trade. I want to put it to my right hon. Friend that that sort of approach from private industry merits a better response. I am not suggesting that we had anything very wonderful to contribute. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend about this, nor am I claiming that private industry is free from blame. I believe indeed that private industry ought to have done more in getting together an organisation to consider these war problems and in working out practical suggestions, but it is very difficult to do that unless there is some response and lead from the Government.
If we had started conversations in May we might have done a good deal to help my right hon. Friend in considering these problems, and the result might have been that a great many of the very hectic discussions which have been going on since the beginning of the war as to profit margins might have been avoided. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough will bear me out, for he is only too familiar with the discussions that have been going on with regard to proper profit margins on articles like tea and so on, that these discussions could all have been started long ago, and that it is embarrassing to have to settle these matters after a war has begun. I want to put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a very genuine desire to co-operate and

that, if we are to evolve that new technique by which we shall be able to produce a co-ordinated national effort to avert the sort of control which has been imposed in Germany we must expect from the Government—

Mr. Stanley: I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave the impression in the House that I have refused to co-operate. When the Ministry of Food was under my Department last winter—not last spring—I remember my hon. Friend coming on several occasions, and I had a number of talks with him with regard to these war-time problems.

Sir G. Schuster: I agree, and I accept that. My right hon. Friend was very good in giving us his time, but there is the particular fact to which I have referred, which carried the whole suggestion on to a much wider basis. I am afraid I cannot withdraw my point that an approach of that kind from an important business association did merit a better response, and that, if the Government were ready to respond to approaches of that kind we should be in a better way to finding a satisfactory solution of these problems. I want to insist upon that point because I believe that as the war goes on, if we want to get through it with the cooperative effort which is needed, and with the right spirit, there must be close cooperation between Government and representative organisations of private business. That is aheady working very well in certain directions where you have well organised industries like the iron and steel trade. It was possible to impose Government control as the Chairman of the United Steel Company said at his general meeting last week, without a ripple on the surface of business. That was the case of a well organised business; but a large part of the business of this country is not so well organised and it will be necessary to find ways and means of getting all that vast field of private enterprise somehow or other into gear with Government purpose and Government policy.
Before I conclude I should like to take up the point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he referred to the vast profits which have been made. It is important to point out to the House—for nothing is more important than that we should understand each


other—that merely to make profits is not a sign of operating against the public interest. I would put it to my right hon. Friend that the man who can give good value and still make a profit is rendering a great service to the community. I would say, for example, that a man like Lord Nuffield has been a great public benefactor, and, in opposition to that, I would say that "public enemy No. 1"is the inefficient business man who, without giving good value, manages to carry on his business without a profit. It is also worth while to put before the House the view that the vast majority of private business people now are only too anxious to work for the public purpose. They find themselves a great deal hampered by all the regulations which are now imposed and find it difficult to see what may happen in future. In these circumstances, sometimes perhaps in self-protection, they do things which, if they knew what the public purpose was, they might avoid doing. We hear a great deal about instances of undue profits.
There is an important point in connection with profits, and it has perhaps a bearing upon this Bill. There is a general feeling in the public mind that if a tradesman happens to be in possession of stock which he has bought at a cheap price, and the price then goes up, and if he puts the prices up, he is profiteering. I would like to put this point to hon. Members opposite. It is one of the most difficult points in connection with the whole business of retail trade or of any kind of trade. There is a simple story which illustrates my point. It is told of a German ironmonger at the time when prices were rising rapidly and the value of the mark was falling. This fellow purchased one cwt. of nails for 100 marks. The price of nails went up, and he was glad to sell his nails for 200 marks. He found, however, that when he came to reinvest his 200 marks in nails he could buy only half a cwt. He sold his half cwt. for 400 marks, but again prices rose and he could buy only 28 lbs. of nails. And so it went on until finally he was left with only one nail as his stock-in-trade, and on this he hanged himself. That is an exaggerated example, but there is a great deal of truth in it for it means that the tradesman must protect the value of his stock in trade. If when prices are rising he sells his goods at something below their replacement cost and con-

tinues doing so, he is bound sooner or later to share the fate of that German ironmonger.
That fear of what is going to happen to prices, and where a man will be left at the end of the war if, as is expected, there is an inevitable fall in prices, is one of the considerations which operate most acutely on the policy of many of those engaged in business to-day. I think it is important that their difficulties should be appreciated and that there should not be any undeserved criticism of them. We all join in expressing the greatest detestation of the real profiteer, but I ask my hon. Friends opposite not to be too hasty in condemning every small tradesman who they may think is making an undue profit. What we need is a clear Government policy. What we need also is some measure of co-ordination between small businesses and the purpose for which we should work is what I have already described as the purpose of somehow or other getting the whole of the private industry in this country into gear with the Government machine.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: No Member of the House will complain of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill. He denounced profiteering in terms which no one on this side could improve upon. Early in the war he promised that he would introduce a Measure which would deal effectively and comprehensively with the evil of profiteering, and that was the reason he gave for not being ready with a Measure straight away. Looking at the Bill in the light of the sentiments expressed by him, I cannot help feeling a sense of disappointment at the limited scope of it. I believe that he is as anxious as anybody else to deal with the evil of profiteering, but if he examines his Bill he will find that it really does not deal with it either effectively or comprehensively. As the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) said it is very limited in its scope. In the first place, it does not deal with goods generally but only with such goods as the Board of Trade decide to regulate. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a general statement of the kind of goods it is his intention to regulate, but the House is giving him a blank cheque, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) said, it is a


matter of opinion whether goods are necessities or luxuries.
It is going to be very difficult to deal with goods on the basis of a particular quality. The right hon. Gentleman will have to deal with goods by way of description, and it will be very difficult to establish that the goods which are being sold by a particular dealer are similar in quality to the goods which are regulated under the Bill. It seems to me that will limit the goods which can be regulated, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal only with goods of a standard, well-recognised quality and that others will be excepted. Moreover, he says that it is not his intention to deal with luxury articles, and it will be possible for large chain stores like Woolworth's or Marks and Spencers if some articles are limited in price to recoup themselves out of the many other articles they sell which will not be regulated.
Further, it does not seem to be the intention to deal at once with all the articles which it is proposed to regulate. It looks as though the President of the Board of Trade proposed to wait until there was some evidence of profiteering. My suspicions about that are confirmed by the terms of the Bill, because it is indicated that when he decides to regulate the price it may be so long after 1st August that it will be difficult to ascertain what was the price on 1st August. I see the right hon. Gentleman dissents from that, but if that is not so I do not understand the terms of the Clause which assumes that there will be some articles about which there will be difficulty, by reason of the lapse of time, in ascertaining their price on 1st August.

Mr. Stanley: That refers to a prosecution, and that may be months or years after the goods have been brought under the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman will be fixing the basic prices, and that should be done in the near future. Many household goods in everyday use will be excluded from the operations of the Bill simply because of the difficulty of describing them in a standard form, the difficulty of laying down a description which will incorporate all goods of that class. It is our experience that the poor generally

buy goods of an unascertainable description. It will be very difficult to fix a basic price for such goods, and that will leave many gaps in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade should consider seriously how he can broaden the basis of the Bill so as to incorporate most of the goods which the ordinary person will have to buy and in such a way that he will not merely have to rely upon the description of those goods.
My second criticism of the Bill concerns the machinery. The right hon. Gentleman wishes the local price regulation committees to have as great powers as possible, and one of their duties will be to enforce the provisions of this Measure in their locality. As I understand the procedure, any member of the public who has a complaint will have to go first to the local committee—if he can discover where it meets, and in the multiplicity of committees that may be a matter of some difficulty. Then he may discover that his complaint relates to an article which is not regulated and in that case nothing can be done, and the seller of the goods is at liberty to profiteer. If the complaint relates to a regulated article, then it must be investigated by the committee, who will doubtless hear evidence and possibly inspect the books of the seller, and they may even interview the tradesman against whom the complaint is made.
After what may turn out to be a long procedure, if they are satisfied that there is a case for prosecution, they cannot themselves institute it. They have to report it to the Central Price Regulation Committee. This committee may go through exactly the same investigation. Unless they do so, they are merely accepting the decision of the local committee. At the end of it, if they are satisfied that there is a case for prosecution, even that committee cannot order a prosecution; they have to refer it to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade then investigate the case for themselves; they carry out a third investigation. If they are satisfied, even then they are not required to institute a prosecution. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply will look at Clause 8 (4) he will see that it merely says that a prosecution
shall not be instituted except by the Board of Trade upon request.
It does not say that if the Board of Trade are satisfied, after the three investigations, they shall prosecute. They


may be quite satisfied that the case merits prosecution but, under the terms of the Clause, they are not obliged to prosecute.
This machinery does not look to me to be the sort for dealing effectively, expeditiously and with certainty with profiteering. There are two many loop-holes and too many opportunities for the profiteer to escape among the intricacies of the various investigations. If the Government are really serious in dealing with this problem, why do they not give the local committees power to order a prosecution if they are satisfied that the profiteering has taken place? Local committees would not be in a position to impose a penalty; they could only order the prosecution and the case then would go to the magistrates, who would decide, upon the evidence before them, whether the person complained against was really guilty. It seems to me that this complexity of machinery will seriously stand in the way of any effective prosecution of profiteering.
Moreover, if in fact, as is the case, the local committee are merely clearing houses, only have the power to decide whether or not to recommend prosecution, I submit that they will not fulfil the function which the President of the Board of Trade desires for them, namely, that they should carry out important and serious duties. Their only function under the Bill be to decide whether or not to submit to the central committee a case which has been put to them. I doubt very much whether you will get serious responsible, well-informed and busy people to serve on a committee of this sort where they will have no really executive power. I should have thought that a local committee such as the right hon. Gentleman desires to set up of responsible local people would be given power to make representations to the Board of Trade as to the kind of goods which it was necessary to put under price control, but they have no such power. Of course, anybody can make a representation; it does not need a local price regulation committee to do that, but I should have thought they would have had specific powers to do something of the sort in order to look after the interests of the consumers in their localities. They should be able to make such representations as they think necessary to the Board of Trade. In view of the very limited

powers that are given to the committees I very much doubt whether you will get —I speak with some knowledge of local government, apart from anything else— responsible and suitable people to give their time to this work when they know very well that at the end of the day, after their recommendations have passed through the sieves of the central committee and the Board of Trade, nothing may come of their complaints.
My last criticism is that the ordinary consumer who is, after all, most affected by the Bill, and for whose benefit it is being introduced, is given very little status in the Bill. For instance, he cannot apply under Clause 5 to the Board of Trade that they should specify a basic price. Only persons who are tradesmen can do that. The same applies to a permitted increase or a permitted price; these things are not open to the ordinary consumer. Under the Clause by which the Board of Trade may fix a price, there can be an appeal against an Order made by the Board of Trade. All sorts of persons have the right of appeal to the referee but not the general public and the consumer, who is the person most concerned. Moreover, if a complaint is made to the local price regulation committee and the committee declines to act, there is no effective remedy.
I do not know what is to be the constitution of these price regulation committees. The Bill is silent about their constitution, which is left entirely to the Minister. I make no complaint about that, but I submit that unless very great care is taken there is a possibility in some localities of interested persons finding their way on to these committees. It may well be that, being local people, they will have some reluctance to order a prosecution in cases where the evidence is clear that they ought to do so. In such a case, and where a person has a legitimate grievance, there is no machinery in the Bill for allowing such a complainant to appeal. I should have thought there would be some machinery for him to go to the Central Price Regulation Committee if he felt dissatisfied with the way in which the local committee had dealt with the matter. I am aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions may step in is certain cases, but I am not satisfied that this provision gives


adequate protection to the ordinary members of the public.
While there is no intention to divide the House against this Measure, and while one welcomes anything which may have the effect of deterring the profiteer, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, on the Committee stage, be prepared substantially and radically so to amend his Bill as to render it a more useful Measure, capable of dealing expeditiously, effectively and comprehensively with the anti-social evil which all Members in this House are anxious mercilessly to eradicate.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: A Bill with such drastic provisions must have the will of the people behind it if it is to be worked as it should be worked. I believe that we shall have that support. This Measure will affect us all, and the longer the war goes on the more the Bill will affect the whole community. The Government are taking the profiteering question in hand at the beginning of the war, and not at the end of the war as they did on the last occasion. We must differentiate between profits which are made from efficient production and those which are obtained by charging excessive prices. With regard to the first class, as long as two years ago taxation was first imposed upon excessive profits. We now have a 60 per cent. Excess Profits Tax and increased Income Tax and Sur-tax, and these are not directed against profiteering. Therefore, the necessity for this Measure. During the last war the Government fixed the price of certain commodities but, as soon as they were fixed, those commodities practically went off the market. There is a provision in this Bill that it will be an offence to refuse to sell stocks which are in hand when the price is fixed.
I am glad to see that there is a provision which admits the necessity of profits. Without profits business would not exist. Exports are exempt, but we must remember that there is still competition overseas. Profiteering overseas during the last war primarily occurred with coal. In regard to manufactures, there are now many more manufacturing nations than there were during the last war. Nations all over the world are capable of manufacturing secondary commodities, and it is that competition that

we have to watch. I should like to know why the Bill is to be confined to commodities specified by the Board of Trade. I consider that it would be desirable to apply it to all commodities. The Bill is a very elaborate one. The complicated routine through which complaints have to go before a prosecution can be instituted is going to cause considerable difficulty in administration, and it is to be hoped that that Clause will be modified. It is a very slow and inefficient procedure. I consider that investigation must be considerably simplified.
The profiteer is still with us and I am convinced that he is not doomed even under this Bill. Fines up to £500 and imprisonment can be inflicted, but the difficulty of enforcing those fines has been pointed out. We have had a spate of legislation recently before the House. A Bill of this description has a much wider scope than the Factory Act, which took practically a session to pass through the House, and it took an army of inspectors to enforce it. We have no opportunity of that kind to enforce this Measure. It has been drawn by the same official mind which drew the Factory Act, and they anticipate its being administered in the same manner, and that in my opinion is where the Bill is going to fail. We have very elaborate legislation with regard to motor cars. I am opposed generally to trade combines because their ultimate object is to maintain selling prices but when it comes to fixing a maximum price, as this Bill is intended to, I think it is possible that combines may be of great service to the community. In fact, I think that with their use there would be less confusion than there may be by administering the Bill without their assistance.
Clause 5 enables representative bodies of traders to ask for prices to be fixed, but it. does not provide that they can submit prices to the Minister for his approval. I suggest that they should be permitted to submit prices to the Minister and, unless he disapproves, they should be considered to be permitted prices. I know that in making that statement we include vested interests, but to work a Measure of this kind we have to have vested interests. We have to include those who know something about the particular industry, and it will be the Minister's duty to be satisfied that the organisations entrusted with fixing those


prices fully represent the industry concerned. We have to have specialised knowledge if the Bill is to be a success. I consider that trade combines are generally out for their own benefit, but I think they are as patriotic as any other organisation when they find the country in the condition it is in. To show the difficulty of administering the Bill if it becomes an Act, we all know that we can buy a motor car at a fixed price, and we know what a strong organisation there is controlling the price of motor cars. Yet you can always buy a car and get accessories thrown in. Now the reverse state of affairs will exist when the Bill becomes law. We have to rely on the will of the people to enforce it and those people who are specialists in the trade.

Mr. A. Edwards: What does the hon. Member mean by the "reverse state of affairs?" He spoke of throwing in accessories.

Mr. Higgs: You can always buy a motor-car cheaper than trade price, not by a reduction in the price but by the addition of accessories. When the Bill becomes an Act, unless it is watched closely we shall always be able to get a commodity at a higher price than the price specified. That is what I meant by reversing the process. I consider that it would be cheaper to administer the Bill in the manner I have suggested than as set out in the Measure itself. The first Schedule sets out the matters to be regarded in fixing permitted increases. It includes expense of manufacturing and processing operations. To show the difficulty in checking over, as suggested by the Minister, take a little instrument containing six or eight component parts, each of which probably has six or eight operations. It is practically impossible to check over those prices as set out in the Schedule. The Bill must give general authority for investigation and not necessarily set out so much detail. Looking down these items, you are not permitted to include the extra cost of gas, fuel or electricity; neither are you permitted to include extra expenditure occasioned by A.R.P., and so forth. I appreciate that it is impossible to cover all these details, but I think that having covered some of them they should all be covered.

Mr. K. Griffith: The First Schedule does include "cost of premises and plant, expense of maintenance and im-

provement thereof," and I should imagine that that would include a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Higgs: Does that include gas and electricity?

Mr. Griffith: I do not know, but I should think so.

Mr. Higgs: The general statement rather than the individual statements would probably be more acceptable, then. One hon. Member has already referred to quality, and I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to that in his opening remarks in view of their great importance. You can buy machine tools at the same price, and one may work five years and the other may work 15 years. It is practically impossible to define quality without having some great specialist on the committee who really knows what he is talking about, and even then it is an exceedingly difficult problem.
This anti-profiteering Bill is undoubtedly wanted and it will be very acceptable to the public in general, but it must have several modifications before it becomes an Act. In conclusion, I would remind the House that the price once fixed will not be permanent, because it may be necessary to revise prices annually, monthly, and in some cases every week. Therefore, I emphasise the magnitude of this Bill and the difficulty in administering it without co-operation of trading organisations to which I have already referred.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The public in general will undoubtedly welcome any Measure to reduce profiteering, because the people are very concerned that there shall be no profit made out of war. I want to deal especially with Clause 7. I know perfectly well that stores like those represented by the Right Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) will endeavour to carry out the Act in the spirit and intention of that Act, but there are other firms to be considered. Clause 7 states:
If any person contravenes any of the provisions of Section one of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence.…
I suppose "he" includes "she." Just imagine a girl shop assistant charged with an offence under this Act, as they often


are under the Shops Act and the Weights and Measures Act. Sometimes under these two Acts the employer and the assistant are charged—frequently only the assistant. The assistant is convicted and that is usually followed by her dismissal, because, although it is true that the assistant was simply carrying out the wish of the firm, the firm wish to persuade the public that they do not condone the offence. Surely, in cases of this kind outlined in the Bill the obligation should be on the employer and not on the assistant. Therefore, why not hold the employer responsible and compel the employer to issue definite instructions to the staff working under him as to the proper prices to be charged and to exhibit a printed price list so that the public in general may know exactly what they should pay? Only by taking these precautions and giving salutary warnings to the staffs can this Act be carried out, and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I observed that when the Minister was introducing and explaining this Bill he admitted that the Bill was an effort to tackle a very difficult problem. He said previous efforts at legislation in this direction have not been too successful, and finally the Minister frankly admitted that the success of this Measure would largely depend upon its administration. We have had too little legislation in this direction, and I would emphasise that while the Government would obtain this Measure with general consent and good will, the real opinion of the House and of the country would not be obtained on the Second Reading of this Bill. The real judgment of the country and of the House will be given later when we observe how effectively or otherwise the Department administers this Bill.
I have seldom seen a Bill introduced into this House where the purpose is so clearly and explicitly stated as in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, and I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the language, because I think it is important:
The purpose of this Bill is to prevent the price of goods to which it is applied by order of the Board of Trade from being raised above the pre-war price by more than the increase in the costs of producing and selling them.

I wish to put a very direct question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Do the Government really mean that language, and are they prepared to give an assurance to the House that this Measure will, in fact, be administered to ensure that the cost of goods covered by this Act will not be permitted to be increased above the actual cost of producing and selling them? I would welcome that becoming the central feature of Government policy during this war. I believe it would represent a fundamental change in the policy that we have so far adopted, and if would be in complete contrast to Government policy during the last war. It would prevent the considerable and widespread disorganisation that arises in the community with rising prices during the war, and it would avoid the immense dislocation and suffering that we have experienced in this country because of the reactions that followed in the post-war period when we had to bring prices down. I regret that in the Debate there has not been a persistent emphasis on the need for the observance of that principle, not only in this Bill but more or less in the whole policy of the Government on these matters.
The second very direct point that I should like to put is this. The President of the Board of Trade gave the House no indication of the extent, or range, of goods that he contemplated the Bill would cover. It is indicated in the general provisions of the Bill that food supplies administered by the Food Defence Plans Department will be outside the scope of the Bill. Does it follow that every commodity that has already come under a measure of Government control, like petrol, paper and so on, is not to be included? A general indication on that point would enable traders to know the type of goods likely to be covered. I rather regret that goods coming within the scope of the Food Defence Plans Department are excluded, because it appears to me that the operations of that Department could very well be covered by the Bill. In the case of butter and one or two other commodities, Government Departments themselves have not set a good example to private traders in the matter of profiteering.
Here is another aspect of Government control on which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what is intended. Industry generally has found during these recent weeks that


where Government control is being introduced there is a tendency to produce a standard article, and, more often than not, an inferior article. This is leading to the destruction of the system of branding and proprietary goods, upon which many firms and industries have built up reputations for quality. This is another aspect of the "quality" argument all ready touched upon. These standard or pool commodities, like pool tea, pool petrol and things of that kind, are destroying the very valuable practice in industry of applying a name to an article, which is a guarantee of a certain measure if quality. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that, in dealing with this problem, this process of uniformity, which can play havoc with the industrial life of this country, and take us very rapidly, in fact, to the corporate State, is not proposed? Can we take it that the provisions of the Bill relating to the consumer will also cover the user of articles and commodities? As far as I can see, it is only in Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 that any provision is made for the consumer—and I am including, in this case, the user of an article or commodity—to have an opportunity of instituting any form of complaint, process or action under the Bill—and in this case it is limited to a complaint lodged with the local prices committee.
Not all Members of the House will agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) in urging that these local committees should consist of accountants or professional people of that character. It appears to me that the expert and the accountant should very properly be called in is assessing the price or make up of the price structure of any commodities, but the local committees and the central committee should be composed not only of persons who have experience of industry, but also of a very wide range of consumers, including representatives of consumer organisations like the co-operative movement—not as traders, but as bodies representing consumers—and also of trade unions representing the workers in the industries concerned. If we are to have traders, employers, chartered accountants and persons of that kind represented, we should have an assurance that there will be not only one consumer's representative and one trade union representative, but a proper balance of interests.
I observe that in the Schedule provision is made for the payment of referees and persons of that description. I should like to know whether it is contemplated that members of the central committee and the local committees are to receive any payment, or whether their work will be voluntary. With regard to the functions of the referees, I observe that they can direct the Board of Trade to alter or revoke orders. That appears to be a power not generally vested in people performing such functions. I do not know that, at this stage, I would disagree with that, but it would be useful to know what makes the referees' task in this case authoritative, or of an executive character. While we give general consent to this Bill, I sincerely trust that when we come to the Committee stage the Department will cooperate with the House in endeavouring to see that the rights of the public to institute complaints and to have their complaints properly investigated by machinery, which will carry out a rapid examination and come to a decision, are thoroughly safeguarded.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is a comparatively long time since I heard anybody in this House begin a speech by saying that all history teaches us something or other, and, not having yet used the phrase myself, I say now that all history teaches us that Government attempts to control prices are very seldom successful. I have, none the less, no doubt that the Government should now make another such attempt, and from the best advice that I have been able to get I do not doubt that this Bill is likely to be as good an attempt as can at this time be tried. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) that this Bill, even more than almost any of the other Bills that we have passed in the last six weeks, will depend on the administration.
I wish, very shortly, to draw attention to two points of administration. The first is a negative point in connection with Clause 13, which is a purely negative Clause. It says that it is not to apply to auctions, with which I am not concerned at the moment, and also that it is not to apply to goods for export. It is right that export prices should not be controlled inside this Bill. I feel equally certain that something more ought to be done than


has yet been done to endeavour to control export prices. In some sense export prices are more important even than prices inside the country. As long as prices inside the country do not reduce us to actual starvation or to riot and revolution, they do not very much matter, but if we do not export sufficiently, then the whole of the rest of our enterprises cannot be carried on. The argument that export prices can be left to themselves because there is no possible monopoly there, does not seem to me to be a sufficient argument. It was not, as the hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition Liberals said, only at the end of the last war that export prices were sometimes put up with disastrous effect. They have already been put up with disastrous effect at the beginning of this war in more than one case. That is the negative point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, that export prices are not here dealt with, and one ought to be sure that they will somewhere be dealt with, although, I agree, not in this Bill.
The other point to which I invite attention, I am afraid, is even more obvious than the first, but the obviousness of these points is perhaps a tribute, such as has already been paid by earlier speakers, to the clarity with which this Bill has been drawn. The obvious point is that the usefulness of the Bill must depend upon the success with which the administration makes two distinctions; in the first place, the distinction between trades where the public interest requires extension, and trades where that is not a considerable public motive. Different trades must be dealt with differently. The other distinction which the administration of this Bill must turn upon, is the distinction between industries, which, in the recent past, have certainly had a high rate of profit, and industries which, in the recent past, have only just perhaps been hanging on. It is certain that in a good many cases it is important that the industries which have just been hanging on in the recent past should not now be allowed to die. It is clear that these industries have to be distinguished from industries in which reasonable profits have in the last ten years been habitual. I wish to be as short as I can, and merely to put upon record, in case in the future any of us have cause to criticise the administration of this Bill, what seems to me to be the main point

upon which the administration of it must be judged in the future.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: There are one or two questions I would like to ask. I have been interested in the Debate. The value of the Bill will rather be the speed with which we can get it to work than its effectiveness in actually determining prices from a legislative point of view. The benefit of this scheme will lie rather in keeping prices down now than in seeking to bring them down after the machinery has been put into operation and it has been proved that too much has been put upon the price. The difficulty at the present time is that when people are called upon to pay a price for an article in excess of what they paid three months ago they immediately jump to the conclusion that somebody is profiteering because of the fact that the article they bought three months ago has gone up in price out of all proportion, as they think, considering the time that the war has been going on.
While I agree with most of the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) I thought that in two or three of his observations he came dangerously near to making suggestions which would have deprived this Bill of the very value we are seeking to obtain from it. I am not criticising the illustration he gave us, in which the companies with which he is directly associated as chairman made overtures and representations to the Government in different ways, or suggesting that they were not made with the best of intentions in the world. I believe they were, but the very fact of vested interests seeking representation might have created the very state of mind against which this Bill is seeking to direct the attention of the people. If it had been felt that the Government had been in collusion with large multiple stores it would be assumed by a lot of people, and it would be very difficult to get it out of their minds, that there had actually been collusion with regard to price fixing.
Another suggestion that was made was that the committee to be set up should be constituted of impartial people like chartered accountants. I have no doubt that in the main chartered accountants are pretty impartial, but while there are duties which chartered accountants are


called upon to fulfil, this committee will have to be conceived in a much wider spirit than that of the mind of the chartered accountant if it is going to function. The hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition Liberal party, and spoke very well, suggested that the Schedule was pretty large, but wondered whether it was large enough. I wonder whether it is possible to justify any expenditure under the heads in the Schedule. He wanted to include bad debts. I have in mind the manufacture of articles out of cotton goods, and if all debts were to be included in the manufacturing price of cotton goods, I do not think it would be much use fixing either a basic price or a maximum price, as you could not reach it any way.
The point I have in mind was partly made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). What is to be the position in regard to the determining factor in fixing prices of these partly manufactured articles, which, during the last 10 years, have been dealt in by manufacturers, and by part manufacturers, at a loss? Is it to be assumed that the price relating to August this year, including the 10 years when they had been making losses, is to be the basis by which any fixation of prices is to be governed?
That brings me to the constitution of the committees. It will be absolutely essential, for instance, in regard to manufactured articles that someone on the committee should be in a position to speak with authority on what is taking place in the various processes of manufacture. That will determine under these schedules whether the expenses are reasonable or not. You may get varying standards of, if I may so put it, trade union employment. In the manufacture of the same article you may get a firm prepared to pay double time, where overtime is worked, and there is another firm where overtime is worked on the basis of time and a quarter. Are the labour charges of that particular firm to be taken as reasonable? That is one of the conditions which will fix the basic price. Take another case where you are dealing with cotton goods of some particular kind in which a firm specialises, and its machinery is right up to date. Is it the price at which the up-to-date firm can manufacture the material out of which the article is produced that is to form the basis,

or is it the most antiquated cotton firm in Lancashire whose labour costs are to be regarded as the basis? These are difficult problems.
The value of the Act of Parliament more than anything else will be in its restraining influence rather than its actual administration. I do not want to compete in getting places for, say, trade union secretaries or anybody else, and I have no wish to deprecate the plea made on behalf of chartered accountants, but in the administration, in addition to chartered accountants all sides of industry, the consumer as well as the employer, will have an interest in seeing that these matters are wisely dealt with.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman must feel pleased that the Bill as not met with any hostile criticism. As far as I can see there is no need for any such hostility, at any rate to the main provisions of the Bill. I was intrigued by the statement of the hon. Member opposite when he spoke of imports and exports, because I find that when the Profiteering Bill of 1919 was introduced, underlying the Debate on the main purposes of that Bill was the attempt to narrow the gulf between imports and exports. Traders in this country were then introducing a great deal of imports because they made much more profit on those than on similar goods manufactured in our own country. The right hon. Gentleman did not however say anything on that score to-day.
As far as I understand it, this Measure is by its Title not an anti-profiteering Bill but a Measure to control the prices of goods. Let it be understood that the consumers are not to have a say in the determination of the prices of any commodities. It is the traders, manufacturers, merchants, wholesalers and the retailers who will determine prices. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore have to depend very largely upon the standard of honour among those people who are assisting him in fixing prices. That is the foundation of the Bill. Frankly, knowing the multiplicity of items and transactions in the wholesale and retail trades it must be difficult for any Government Department to handle this complex business. Let any hon. Member think how many articles he himself has in his own household. I should like to see a householder taking


an inventory of the number of articles in his own household however small it may be. He would find several hundreds of little things of all sorts and he would then have a fair idea of what it means to control prices under this or any other Measure.
The Government are to be commended on bringing in the Bill at the outset of the war. We all remember at the end of the last war that what we called the new section of society came into existence, the new rich. People have somehow a very nasty habit of being able to make huge profits during a war. The intention of this Measure, I presume, is to prevent that happening on this occasion.

Mr. Alexander: Oh.

Mr. Davies: At any rate, that is what the Government say, and what they say is sometimes taken for gospel in this House. Frankly, I have never adopted that attitude towards this Government. Perhaps they will forgive me for saying that. However, since a fellow countryman of mine will be replying for the Government this evening, my attitude towards them may be modified a little.
It is astonishing what tricks can be played in connection with commodities for sale. If a merchant adds 10 per cent. to the price of a given commodity when he sells it to the wholesaler, the wholesaler adds another 10 per cent., and then the retailer adds still another 10 per cent. When the retail shopkeeper sells that very same article he must also do a little to enhance the price, and so it goes on. I notice that the President of the Board of Trade is pointing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). My right hon. Friend represents a co-operative community of traders who never make any profit at all. Their conditions of employment too are, so we are told, Utopian in every respect.
With regard to the effect of the Bill on percentages, I would point out that on 16th September this year a very reputable journal gave a list of the following articles which have increased in wholesale price since the war—hosiery, 24 per cent.; furniture, 20 to 25 per cent.; furnishing fabrics, 20 per cent., cane chairs and baskets, 15 per cent.; cheap electric fires, 35 per cent.; and handkerchiefs, 18

per cent.[An HON. MEMBER: "Cotton?"] I cannot say, but most handkerchiefs are cotton. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) knows more than I do about that, although I represent a Lancashire seat, and ought to know. One thing that I fear about this Bill and its administration is that unless the right hon. Gentleman is careful when he fixes prices, from the basis upwards, he may, in spite of that control still find as much profiteering as if the Bill had never been in operation. It is the starting point in fixing prices that will determine whether profiteering will prevail in the ultimate sale of commodities. I want it to be quite clear that I have never believed that high prices automatically mean profiteering. We have to get out of our minds and make the public understand that. Prices have gone up recently because of war risks insurance, A.R.P. costs, reductions in sales and sometimes owing to scarcity. A reputable shopkeeper told me the other day that he could not without loss to himself sell butter at the controlled price of 1s. 7d. per lb.; he had to throw the loss on something else.
It seems to me that the main benefit of the Bill will be that several capitalists themselves will be able to check one another much more effectively than hitherto. The manufacturer, the merchant, the wholesaler and the retailer, will be able to check as to the correct price they should charge for a commodity. That is all to the good, unless, of course, they join together behind the scenes in a trust and destroy all that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I imagine that if the Bill is effective at all it will benefit especially local authorities who purchase commodities on a large scale for hospitals and other institutions, and I should not be surprised if it did not benefit Government Departments also, who are heavy buyers of commodities. When I was a member of a local authority it was quite a common thing in estimates for pipes and such things for the price to be the same in every case, because there was a ring. If the Bill has any result at all I imagine that it will assist in breaking rings, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman has that in mind already.
I want to emphasise one point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr.


Leslie). The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to say that he will look into it. The Bill fastens the offence upon the person who sells the article. I am thinking of the shop assistant. To fasten upon him every violation of this Measure is to destroy what we call the power of agency. If an employé violates this Measure by selling an article for a higher price than he should, the motive behind his act is simply to benefit his employer. I should not therefore like the Bill to swoop down upon an employé who has had probably a nod without specific instruction to make a profit for his employer by breaking the law. The employé under this Bill is not only penalised by being brought before the court but will be dismissed his job into the bargain. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will look into that point, because to some of us it is rather an important one. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon luxuries and I was rather intrigued by what he said. In my constituency, as in a good many others, butter has become a luxury to those on the means test. What is a luxury to one family is common to another. In the main I agree that it is no use, for instance, regulating the price of gold watches and bracelets.
The Bill, in my view, will benefit the community more by its salutary effect than by administration. It is the fear of the seller being prosecuted that will assist the public. I have had a little experience of this recently. I bought 40 bags of sand and opened two of them to see what was inside. One half was stones and clay, exactly the things of which I want to rid my own garden. I could have supplied most of the stuff myself. The point there is, that the production and manufacture of new commodities are so rapid that before the right hon. Gentleman can issue an order, he will have a set of new articles on the market that have never been seen before; and I am wondering how he will deal with the speed at which these things are being turned out. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that a rather serious difficulty.
There is in the Bill a provision to prevent that very doubtful practice which consists in the shopkeeper telling a woman customer that she can get 2 lbs. of sugar provided she buys 10 lbs. of flour, a bar of soap, and so on. But I thought that a provision dealing with that existed already, because last week, in the town

of Hyde, a person was fined £5, and ordered to pay costs, for doing that very thing. [Interruption.]That was a matter which presumably came under the Minister of Food. We have to understand, therefore, that this Bill is not mainly concerned with food as such. With regard to articles of clothing, boots, and so on, I want to say something to the President of the Board of Trade which may perhaps not be new to him. You can have exactly the same article, of the same quality, produced by the same firm under the same conditions, merchanted in the same way, and yet sold at different prices in different towns in retail shops.
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman will find a difficulty on that score in issuing orders. I will tell him why. The prices of commodities must of necessity tend to meet the purchasing power of the people in a given locality. In London, if the average income is, say, £3 per head per week, people can purchase the same articles at a higher price than people can in Lancashire, where the average income is, let us say for the purpose of illustration, only £2 10s. per head per week. I have seen that sort of thing happening. I was bred and born in South Wales, and I now live in Manchester. I have seen exactly the same kind of article, quality for quality, sold in the Rhondda Valley at about 10 or 15 per cent. lower than the price in Manchester, where the article was manufactured and merchanted. That is simply because prices have a tendency to come down to the level of the consumer's purchasing power; and in issuing his orders the right hon. Gentleman will have to bear all that in mind too.
We are at war and we have to face all these things. I will give the right hon. Gentleman and the House a little illustration of how the average housewife looks at this problem. Here is something that was brought to my attention the other day as a consequence of the announcement that this Bill was to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the Bill will probably not deal with this sort of problem, but here is one that was put to me. In Manchester, codfish was 7d. a lb. before the war, and last week it was 1s. 6d. a lb. Strangely enough, halibut was 1s. 2d. a lb. before the war, and 2s. a lb. last week. Thus, one comes to the simple fact that the poorer a person is, for some unknown


reason, the more he has to spend to buy commodities.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman has just said the opposite.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member misunderstands me. The poor people have to buy in smaller quantities than the rich, and the smaller quantity one buys, the more we have to pay for it. The poorer people are, the more often they go to the shop too; they almost make the shop their pantry. They buy in quarter-pounds, whereas people who can afford to do so buy a pound, two or even five pounds at a time.
I conclude by saying that we support the main provisions of the Bill, though we shall have some observations to make upon it later when we come to consider amendments. I trust the House will forgive me for repeating here what I have often said before. During the 18 years I have been here I have seen no benefit whatever to the people from any Act of Parliament unless it was put into operation and administered effectively; and I know of more than one Act of Parliament which was hailed with great glee, but was never put into effective operation. I think that is the sum and substance of the observations which have been made from all parts of the House to-day. With others who have spoken, I trust that when this Bill becomes law we shall all do our best to see that it is administered in such a way that we shall never have the spectacle in this country during this war, of what my right hon. Friend described as wages chasing prices and prices chasing wages in turn, and wages never, at any point, catching up with prices.

9.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): A good many of those who have spoken in this Debate have pointed out what is, indeed, an obvious truth, namely, that this is a question which affects every house in the country. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that the fact that a rise in prices took place did not, of necessity, mean that there was profiteering, and that is perfectly true. We have had cases in which one could not possibly say that there was profiteering because prices had risen. At the same time, cases have been

brought to our notice, and no doubt also to the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which prices have risen without any reason at all. Up to date we have only been able to get in touch with people responsible for raising prices unduly, calling their attention to the fact and asking for an explanation. In many cases it has been possible to reduce the amount of the increase, and in other cases I am glad to say it has been possible to have the increase taken off altogether. The fact remains that, despite all efforts, there are still people who charge unduly high prices, and the object of the Bill is to give us power to deal with those cases.
I entirely agree with the last speaker —and I have been very glad to notice it in practically all the speeches to-day— that there is general agreement on the principle of the Bill. There will, obviously, be points of difference about details which can be dealt with at the proper time, but I think it is generally accepted that the Bill is designed to help the consumer and to prevent his exploitation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) and others stated what is too only obviously true, that a great deal depends on how the machinery of the Bill works and on how the committees function. This is not a very easy question. An attempt was made once before, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to deal with this question. We feel that the machinery that has been outlined will prove effective, provided we take good care to see that it is properly managed. I can assure the House that we are determined that we shall not have, as the right hon. Member for Hillsborough pointed out just now, the sort of committees which we had in the war, when the central committee had about 150 members and I believe there were 1,800 committees all over the country. I can assure the House that that is not the intention on this occasion, but that it is rather to get a committee consisting of people at the head, people who really do understand business affairs and who are able, when propositions are put up to them, really to analyse them and find out whether they are straightforward or not. That is our intention.
It has been asked also what articles are to be specified. The hon. Member


for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) wanted every article specified. We really want this Bill to work. It would be easy, if we wanted to give an appearance of having done something, to have produced a Bill covering every article in the country, but I do not think it would work, and it is the intention of the Government that this Bill should work. Therefore, we propose, first of all, to take those articles which enter into what I may call the standard of living of the mass of the people of this country, and by that means we shall avoid the disaster of having our machinery completely overwhelmed. I believe it will be possible, and very shortly, presuming this Bill is passed into law, to choose those articles which really do affect the vast mass of the people of this country.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and gallant Member used the expression "first of all" in regard to the articles which are to be chosen. Is it the Government's intention gradually to extend the number of articles?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, and we have complete power to extend, as the necessity arises, to other articles. [An HON. MEMBER: "To luxuries?"] It may well be that if you have a luxury, it may be to the advantage of the nation to sell it at as high a price as possible. It is a question of what is and what is not a luxury, and that is very difficult to decide, but if you have a real luxury trade the Exchequer benefits from it. I see the difficulty in actually differentiating between what is and what is not a luxury. There can be no difficulty at all, however, in deciding on the things which really matter to the vast majority of the people, and that is what we mean to do to start with.
With regard to another point to which the hon. Member referred, and that was to the fact that the consumer was not consulted in Clause 5 about the fixing of prices, he will observe, if he looks at Subsection (3), that an appeal shall lie against such an order to a referee at the instance of any body of persons appearing to him to be representative of traders in, or buyers of, goods. I think the term "buyers of" would cover a body of consumers.
I do not think we need worry much about the observation of the hon. Mem-

ber about the multiplicity of committees and processes.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Member remember that the word "buyers" has a meaning of its own, and that in all our wholesale houses in the great cities of this country buyers are persons who occupy very important posts?

Major Lloyd George: I know what the hon. Gentleman means, but this is the ordinary sense of the word—the man who goes to the shop to buy.

Mr. Silkin: I would draw the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the words "a body of persons claiming to be representative of buyers." Surely that goes beyond the ordinary consumer.

Major Lloyd George: This provision is for the protection of traders. It would be impossible to deal with individual traders, but practically everybody in trade is now represented by some organisation. The consumer will be represented on the local committee and he will be able to make complaints to the committee. I hope the hon. Member will get out of his mind that we are going to have a maze of local and central committees making representations to the Board of Trade, and so on. The whole point is that the central committee is there to guide the local committees. That applies to the point of the hon. Member for Westhoughton with regard to different prices in different places. It will be impossible to have a basic price for every article in the country, but if there are percentage increases it will cover the point the hon. Member made.

Mr. A. Edwards: What kind of association could the consumer have?

Major Lloyd George: I am not suggesting that there should be associations of consumers. The consumer will be able to make his complaint to the local committee.

Mr. Edwards: I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was suggesting that there were organisations, but I do not know of any.

Major Lloyd George: The point of this provision is the protection of traders. The individual consumer can make complaints to the committee.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) referred to the possible extension of the schedule. I will have that looked into. He also raised a question on Clause 10 with regard to insurance and I will have this point examined also. With regard to foods, so far as they are controlled to-day they will not enter into this Bill.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Department take action against a Government Department for profiteering?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member likes to make a complaint to the local committee I daresay it will be looked into.

Mr. Alexander: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that controlled foods will not be included in the Bill, does he mean those for which food price Orders have been issued or all the commodities which have been controlled, whether by price or by regulation?

Major Lloyd George: I mean where the price has been fixed. The point was raised about poor quality. It is not the intention of the Government that the result of anything they do shall be that material is of poor quality. It may be necessary in certain cases, for the sake of the consumer, to fix a standard of quality.

Sir P. Harris: This is very important. One of the most danegorous forms of profiteering in the last war was done by taking the quality out of the goods, and on the Committee stage the Bill might be strengthened in that respect. It does not matter how a man is swindled —if he is given an inferior article he is being exploited just as much as if the price had been increased.

Major Lloyd George: I do not think that was the particular point which the hon. Member had raised, but I agree that one of the worst forms of profiteering is the selling of a poorer article for the same price as the better article. There are people who say that consumers do not mind that so much, and it is not so easy in some cases to deal with it, but it may be necessary to have penalties where we can trace that goods of an inferior quality have been supplied. In regard to the

payment of the committees, it may well be that the chairmanship of the committees will be almost a full-time occupation and chairmen may therefore be paid. As to the other members, it is certainly not the wish of the Government that persons who would be of great service on those committees should be precluded from serving because they were not able from the financial standpoint to give their time. In any case we are anxious to get the best type of committee, both centrally and locally. Reference has been made by two hon. Members to the export trade. While it is fully agreed that in the last war things were done which were very detrimental to our export trade, I think they will recognise that this is not a Bill in which it would be easy to deal with the problems of the export trade and there would be great difficulties in making it work. As to the point about shop assistants, I will have that looked into, but our intention is to proceed not against the assistant but against the employer, who is primarily responsible.
I have tried to deal as quickly as I can with most of the points which have been raised, and now I should like to stress once again that the main purpose of this Bill is to check the increase of the price of the commodities needed by our people. There is abundant evidence since the war began that the vast majority of our tradesmen have "played the game." Indeed, cases have come to my notice where rises which could have been legitimately passed on have not been passed on. At the same time there have been other cases in which one has seen that people were apparently determined to take advantage of the difficulties of this country for their own ends. If that example were followed by the whole community it could lead only to absolute disaster. When our fellow-countrymen and fellow-countrywomen have been called upon to make very heavy sacrifices for the nation and, as my right hon. Friend has said, are doing it willingly for the sake of the cause, they deserve to be protected against people who do the kind of thing which I have mentioned. I believe that this Bill will give that protection, and I accordingly commend it to the House.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tuesday next.-—[Mr. Grimston.]

PRICES OF GOODS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That. for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prevent the price of goods being raised above a basic price by more than an amount referable to increases in certain specified expenses, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying—

(a) to the members of price-regulation committees appointed under the said Act such remuneration (if any), travelling allowances and subsistence allowances, to the secretaries, officers and servants of the committees such remuneration, and such other expenses of the committees, as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Treasury; and
(b) to a referee appointed under the said Act for the purposes of any appeal relating

to the fixing of prices thereunder and to assessors selected to assist him such remuneration, and such other expenses of such a referee or assessors, as may be so determined."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Stanley.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed'.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Nine o'Clock, till Tuesday next, 24th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.